| Literature DB >> 15222887 |
Christophe L Herry1, Monique Frize.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The skin temperature distribution of a healthy human body exhibits a contralateral symmetry. Some nociceptive and most neuropathic pain pathologies are associated with an alteration of the thermal distribution of the human body. Since the dissipation of heat through the skin occurs for the most part in the form of infrared radiation, infrared thermography is the method of choice to study the physiology of thermoregulation and the thermal dysfunction associated with pain. Assessing thermograms is a complex and subjective task that can be greatly facilitated by computerised techniques.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2004 PMID: 15222887 PMCID: PMC455685 DOI: 10.1186/1475-925X-3-19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Figure 1Examples of thermograms considered in this study. Thermograms of the upper-back, lower-back, upper- and lower-legs for pain patients and control subjects.
Figure 2Pseudo-colour isothermal display of thermograms. Pseudo-colour isothermal display of thermograms of the upper-back, lower-back, upper- and lower-legs for pain patients and control subjects. The colorbar on the right gives the range of temperature in °C.
Figure 3Subdivision of images for the DWST. Division of the original image into 9 sub-images. The numbers indicate the sub-images. The final square on the right shows the final portion of each sub-image that is retained to compute the final, resulting image.
Rate of incorrect background extraction. Rate of incorrect background extraction for images of the lower back, upper-back and legs. The first figure indicates the number of images whose background was incorrectly extracted. The second figure is the total number of images.
| With Denoising | Without Denoising | |
| Lower Back images | 9/72 | 22/72 |
| Upper Back images | 12/85 | 15/85 |
| Legs | 22/205 | 30/205 |
Normal Values for the back. Mean Temperature Difference plus or minus standard deviation for our control population of healthy volunteers.
| ROIs | Number of Cases | Mean Temperature Difference ± Standard Deviation |
| Thoracic (medial) | 12 | 0.09 ± 0.09 |
| Shoulder (posterior) | 12 | 0.12 ± 0.10 |
| Thoracic (lateral) | 12 | 0.09 ± 0.09 |
| Thigh (anterior) | 13 | 0.15 ± 0.11 |
| Thigh (posterior) | 14 | 0.11 ± 0.09 |
| Knee (anterior) | 13 | 0.12 ± 0.13 |
| Knee (posterior) | 14 | 0.15 ± 0.12 |
| Leg (anterior) | 13 | 0.15 ± 0.12 |
| Leg (posterior) | 14 | 0.10 ± 0.06 |
Distance results for the back. Mean, standard deviation and threshold of distance measures for the back, for our control population. Mah., Eucl., Max., Chi, JD, Mal, KS stand for: Mahalanobis, Euclidian, Maximum, Chi-square, Jeffrey-Divergence, Mallows, Kolmogorov-Smirnov distances respectively. CI stands for confidence interval.
| Distance results: noisy image | |||||||
| Mahn. dist. | Eucl. dist. | Max. dist. | Chi sq. dist. | JD dist. | Mallows dist. | KS dist. | |
| Mean | 0.492 | 0.083 | 0.032 | 0.110 | 0.084 | 1.092 | 0.171 |
| Std. dev. | 0.152 | 0.025 | 0.013 | 0.057 | 0.048 | 0.571 | 0.103 |
| Threshold (99%CI) | 0.796 | 0.133 | 0.057 | 0.223 | 0.180 | 2.235 | 0.377 |
| Distance results: denoised image | |||||||
| Mahn. dist. | Eucl. dist. | Max. dist. | Chi sq. dist. | JD dist. | Mallows dist. | KS dist. | |
| Mean | 0.565 | 0.105 | 0.042 | 0.142 | 0.108 | 1.427 | 0.205 |
| Std. dev. | 0.180 | 0.039 | 0.020 | 0.070 | 0.060 | 0.798 | 0.111 |
| Threshold (99%CI) | 0.924 | 0.184 | 0.082 | 0.282 | 0.229 | 3.022 | 0.427 |
Distance results for the legs. Mean, standard deviation and threshold of distance measures for the legs, for our control population. Mah., Eucl., Max., Chi, JD, Mal, KS stand for: Mahalanobis, Euclidian, Maximum, Chi-square, Jeffrey-Divergence, Mallows, Kolmogorov-Smirnov distances respectively. CI stands for confidence interval.
| Distance results: noisy image | |||||||
| Mahn. dist. | Eucl. dist. | Max. dist. | Chi sq. dist. | JD dist. | Mallows dist. | KS dist. | |
| Mean | 0.663 | 0.099 | 0.037 | 0.195 | 0.101 | 0.509 | 0.181 |
| Std. dev. | 0.150 | 0.022 | 0.013 | 0.075 | 0.030 | 0.247 | 0.091 |
| Threshold (99%CI) | 0.964 | 0.142 | 0.063 | 0.345 | 0.160 | 1.004 | 0.364 |
| Distance results: denoised image | |||||||
| Mahn. dist. | Eucl. dist. | Max. dist. | Chi sq. dist. | JD dist. | Mallows dist. | KS dist. | |
| Mean | 0.694 | 0.106 | 0.038 | 0.206 | 0.109 | 0.528 | 0.192 |
| Std. dev. | 0.166 | 0.025 | 0.014 | 0.083 | 0.035 | 0.279 | 0.100 |
| Threshold (99%CI) | 1.027 | 0.155 | 0.066 | 0.373 | 0.178 | 1.086 | 0.392 |
Specificity values for the control population. Specificity values of statistical distance measures considered, from a complete isothermal analysis of thermograms of the back and legs for our control population.
| Specificity for thermograms of the back | |||||||
| Mahn. dist. | Eucl. dist. | Max. dist. | Chi sq. dist. | JD dist. | Mallows dist. | KS dist. | |
| Specificity | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.86 |
| Specificity for thermograms of the legs | |||||||
| Mahn. dist. | Eucl. dist. | Max. dist. | Chi sq. dist. | JD dist. | Mallows dist. | KS dist. | |
| Specificity | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.95 |
Sensitivity and specificity values for actual pain patients. Sensitivity and specificity values for thermograms of actual pain patients. Mean ΔT refers to the comparison based on the mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, maximum and minimum.
| Mahn. dist. | Eucl. dist. | Max. dist. | Chi sq. dist. | JD dist. | Mallows dist. | KS dist. | Mean Temp. diff. | |
| Sensitivity | 0.67 | 0.78 | 0.33 | 0.72 | 0.67 | 0.55 | 0.71 | 0.5 |
| Specificity | 0.67 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.5 | 0.43 | 0.67 |