| Literature DB >> 35392642 |
Yue Meng1,2, Li'an Liu3, Yanfei Zheng1, Lingru Li1, Xing Liu1,2, Junjun Qin1,2, Jing Xia1,2, Diankun Cui1, Jinfeng Liang1,2, Zhuqing Li1,2, Tianxing Li4, Taotao Wu1,2, Yun Yan1,2, Wenle Li1,2, Yaoyao Zhou1,2, Jianxiang Sun5, Shujuan Hou1, Qi Wang1.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically summarize and form an expert consensus on the theoretical experience of tongue and facial features for the identification of nine types of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) constitution. Additionally, we sought to explore the feasibility of TCM constitution identification through objective tongue and facial features.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35392642 PMCID: PMC8983216 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6950529
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Judgment basis of expert consultation based on the Delphi method.
| Basis for judgment | Degree of influence on expert judgment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Large | Medium | Small | |
| Theoretical analysis | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Practical experience | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Domestic and foreign references | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Subjective intuition | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
General information of experts (n = 11).
| Item |
| % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Education | Master's degree | 1 | 9 |
| Doctorate degree | 10 | 91 | |
|
| |||
| Title | Chief physician/professor/researcher | 5 | 45 |
| Associate chief physician/associate professor/associate researcher | 3 | 27 | |
| Attending physician/lecturer/assistant researcher | 3 | 27 | |
|
| |||
| Major | TCM body constitution | 8 | 73 |
| TCM prevention and treatment of disease | 2 | 18 | |
| TCM diagnostics | 1 | 9 | |
|
| |||
| Experience in field (years) | 5–10 | 3 | 27 |
| 10–15 | 3 | 27 | |
| 20–25 | 2 | 18 | |
| >30 | 3 | 27 | |
|
| |||
| Region | Beijing | 9 | 82 |
| Shanghai | 1 | 9 | |
| Shenzhen | 1 | 9 | |
Evaluation of the importance of facial features in identifying body constitution (n = 11).
| Item | Item | Importance value ( | Coefficient of variation (SD/ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overview | TCM body constitution | 7.73 | ± | 1.01 | 0.13 |
| BC | Balanced constitution | 6.82 | ± | 1.83 | 0.27 |
| QDC | Qi-deficiency constitution | 7.64 | ± | 1.50 | 0.20 |
| YADC | Yang-deficiency constitution | 7.09 | ± | 1.64 | 0.23 |
| YIDC | Yin-deficiency constitution | 7.82 | ± | 1.89 | 0.24 |
| PDC | Phlegm-dampness constitution | 8.82 | ± | 1.47 | 0.17 |
| DHC | Damp-heat constitution | 8.82 | ± | 1.40 | 0.16 |
| BSC | Blood-stasis constitution | 8.91 | ± | 1.22 | 0.14 |
| QSC | Qi-stagnation constitution | 7.46 | ± | 2.16 | 0.29 |
| ISC | Inherited specific constitution | 4.64 | ± | 1.86 | 0.40 |
Result of the degree of concentration of expert opinions.
| TCM constitution type | Item | Round 1 | Round 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Importance value ( | Coefficient of variation (SD/m) | Percentage of importance ≥4 | Importance value ( | Coefficient of variation (SD/m) | Percentage of importance ≥4 | Coefficient of authority ( | ||
| BC | Face-color-ruddy | 4.27 ± 0.65 | 0.15 | 0.91 | 4.20 ± 0.63 | 0.15 | 0.9 | 0.94 |
| Eye-gaze-vigorous | 4.65 ± 0.50 | 0.11 | 1.00 | 4.50 ± 0.53 | 0.12 | 1.0 | 0.92 | |
| Nose-color-bright | 4.18 ± 0.75 | 0.18 | 0.82 | 3.80 ± 0.63 (—) | 0.17 | 0.7 | 0.79 | |
| Lip-color-ruddy | 4.27 ± 0.90 | 0.21 | 0.91 | 4.00 ± 0.67 | 0.17 | 0.8 | 0.87 | |
| Tongue-color-light red | 4.18 ± 0.60 | 0.14 | 0.91 | 4.20 ± 0.79 | 0.19 | 0.8 | 0.91 | |
|
| ||||||||
| QDC | Face-color-yellow | 4.00 ± 0.77 | 0.19 | 0.73 | 3.80 ± 1.03 (—) | 0.27 | 0.6 | 0.92 |
| Face-color-pale | 3.81 ± 0.75 | 0.20 | 0.82 | 3.80 ± 0.92 (—) | 0.24 | 0.7 | 0.91 | |
|
| ||||||||
| YADC | Face-color-pale | 4.36 ± 0.50 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 4.20 ± 0.63 | 0.15 | 0.9 | 0.87 |
| Lip-shape-fat | 4.09 ± 0.70 | 0.17 | 0.82 | 4.60 ± 0.70 | 0.15 | 0.9 | 0.93 | |
|
| ||||||||
| YIDC | Face-color-flush | 4.36 ± 0.50 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 4.10 ± 0.74 | 0.18 | 0.8 | 0.92 |
| Zygomatic-color-flush | 4.09 ± 0.70 | 0.17 | 0.82 | 4.00 ± 0.67 | 0.17 | 0.8 | 0.90 | |
| Lip-color-red | 4.09 ± 0.70 | 0.17 | 0.82 | 4.30 ± 0.67 | 0.16 | 0.9 | 0.92 | |
| Tongue-color-red | 3.82 ± 1.08 | 0.28 | 0.82 | 4.50 ± 0.71 | 0.16 | 0.9 | 0.96 | |
|
| ||||||||
| PDC | Face-shape-fat | 4.36 ± 0.67 | 0.15 | 0.91 | 4.00 ± 0.82 | 0.20 | 0.7 | 0.92 |
| Face-oily | 4.36 ± 0.67 | 0.15 | 0.91 | 4.20 ± 0.79 | 0.19 | 0.8 | 0.93 | |
| Forehead-oily | 4.18 ± 0.87 | 0.21 | 0.73 | 4.00 ± 0.67 | 0.17 | 0.8 | 0.90 | |
| Eyelid-shape-swelling | 4.36 ± 0.50 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 4.40 ± 0.52 | 0.12 | 1.0 | 0.90 | |
| Tongue-coating-texture-thick | 3.91 ± 1.14 | 0.29 | 0.82 | 4.30 ± 0.82 | 0.19 | 0.8 | 0.91 | |
|
| ||||||||
| DHC | Face-dirty and stasis | 4.00 ± 1.10 | 0.27 | 0.82 | 4.40 ± 0.70 | 0.16 | 0.9 | 0.93 |
| Face-oily | 4.55 ± 0.69 | 0.15 | 0.91 | 4.60 ± 0.70 | 0.15 | 0.9 | 0.94 | |
| Nose-oily | 4.18 ± 0.87 | 0.21 | 0.73 | 4.00 ± 0.67 | 0.17 | 0.8 | 0.89 | |
| Susceptibility-brandy nose | 4.18 ± 0.98 | 0.23 | 0.82 | 3.70 ± 0.67 (—) | 0.18 | 0.6 | 0.85 | |
| Susceptibility-facial acne | 4.46 ± 0.69 | 0.15 | 0.91 | 4.50 ± 0.53 | 0.12 | 1.0 | 0.97 | |
| Tongue-coating-color-yellow | 4.00 ± 0.45 | 0.11 | 0.91 | 4.70 ± 0.48 | 0.10 | 1.0 | 0.97 | |
| Tongue-coating-texture-thick | 4.18 ± 0.60 | 0.14 | 0.91 | 4.00 ± 0.82 | 0.20 | 0.9 | 0.95 | |
|
| ||||||||
| BSC | Face-color-dark | 4.55 ± 0.52 | 0.11 | 1.00 | 4.50 ± 0.71 | 0.16 | 0.9 | 0.91 |
| Face-color-black | 4.18 ± 0.75 | 0.18 | 0.82 | 4.20 ± 0.79 | 0.19 | 0.8 | 0.87 | |
| Susceptibility-facial pigmentation | 4.09 ± 0.94 | 0.23 | 0.82 | 4.30 ± 0.67 | 0.16 | 0.9 | 0.94 | |
| Susceptibility-ecchymosis | 4.36 ± 0.50 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 4.50 ± 0.53 | 0.12 | 1.0 | 0.89 | |
| Susceptibility-chloasma | 4.18 ± 0.60 | 0.14 | 0.91 | 4.00 ± 0.82 | 0.20 | 0.7 | 0.88 | |
| Zygomatic-texture-red blood streaks | 4.09 ± 0.70 | 0.17 | 0.82 | 4.00 ± 0.82 | 0.20 | 0.7 | 0.84 | |
| Cheek-texture-red blood streaks | 4.00 ± 0.77 | 0.19 | 0.73 | 3.60 ± 0.52 (—) | 0.14 | 0.6 | 0.77 | |
| Eyelid-dark circles | 4.09 ± 0.54 | 0.13 | 0.91 | 4.30 ± 0.48 | 0.11 | 1.0 | 0.94 | |
| Lip-color-dark purple | 4.36 ± 0.50 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 4.30 ± 0.48 | 0.11 | 1.0 | 0.92 | |
| Tongue-color-dark purple | 4.46 ± 0.52 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 4.60 ± 0.52 | 0.11 | 1.0 | 0.94 | |
| Tongue-texture-bruise | 4.36 ± 0.67 | 0.15 | 0.91 | 4.40 ± 0.52 | 0.12 | 1.0 | 0.94 | |
| Sublingual-vein-varicose and dark purple | 4.55 ± 0.52 | 0.11 | 1.00 | 4.70 ± 0.48 | 0.10 | 1.0 | 0.95 | |
| Tongue edge-color-blue purple | 4.00 ± 1.00 | 0.25 | 0.73 | 3.80 ± 0.79 (—) | 0.21 | 0.6 | 0.84 | |
|
| ||||||||
| SQC | Depressed appearance | 4.55 ± 0.69 | 0.15 | 0.91 | 4.80 ± 0.42 | 0.09 | 1.0 | 0.95 |
| Saliva lines on both sides of the tongue | — | — | — | 3.50 ± 0.71 (—) | 0.20 | 0.4 | 0.80 | |
|
| ||||||||
| ISC | Susceptibility-dermatitis manifestations | — | — | — | 4.20 ± 0.79 | 0.19 | 0.8 | 0.90 |
Note: (—) means that the item was eliminated in the second round.
Characteristics of participants in the primary and validation groups.
| Characteristic | Primary group | Validation group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BSC (−) | BSC (+) |
| BSC (−) | BSC (+) |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Sex | <0.01 | 0.03 | ||||
| Male | 53 (34.9%) | 6 (9.7%) | 19 (30%) | 1 (5%) | ||
| Female | 99 (65.1%) | 56 (90.3%) | 44 (70%) | 18 (95%) | ||
| Age (mean ± SD) | 42.6 ± 11.5 | 50.0 ± 11.9 | <0.01 | 41.9 ± 12.9 | 48.6 ± 11.1 | 0.05 |
| BMI | 0.13 | 0.48 | ||||
| BMI < 18.5 | 13 (8.6%) | 4 (6.5%) | 6 (10%) | 1 (5%) | ||
| 18.5 < BMI ≤ 24 | 108 (71.1%) | 37 (59.7%) | 40 (63%) | 10 (53%) | ||
| 24 < BMI ≤ 28 | 30 (19.7%) | 19 (30.6%) | 16 (25%) | 7 (37%) | ||
| BMI > 28 | 1 (0.7%) | 2 (3.2%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (5%) | ||
| Hair volume | <0.01 | 0.19 | ||||
| Less | 9 (5.9%) | 21 (33.9%) | 4 (6%) | 4 (21%) | ||
| Normal | 113 (74.3%) | 34 (54.8%) | 47 (75%) | 12 (63%) | ||
| More | 30 (19.7%) | 7 (11.3%) | 12 (19%) | 3 (16%) | ||
| Hair oil secretion | <0.01 | 0.09 | ||||
| Dry | 14 (9.2%) | 19 (30.6%) | 5 (8%) | 4 (21%) | ||
| Normal | 119 (78.3%) | 26 (41.9%) | 49 (78%) | 10 (53%) | ||
| Oily | 19 (12.5%) | 17 (27.4%) | 9 (14%) | 5 (26%) | ||
| Face-color-black | 0.8 ± 1.4 | 1.2 ± 1.5 | 0.04 | 0.7 ± 1.6 | 0.9 ± 1.4 | 0.69 |
| Face-color-dark | 1.3 ± 1.7 | 2.2 ± 1.9 | <0.01 | 1.2 ± 1.8 | 2.2 ± 1.5 | 0.04 |
| Lip-color- dark purple | 1.5 ± 2.0 | 2.8 ± 2.1 | <0.01 | 1.3 ± 1.9 | 2.1 ± 2.0 | 0.12 |
| Susceptibility-facial pigmentation/chloasma/ecchymosis | 2.1 ± 2.0 | 3.7 ± 1.9 | <0.01 | 2.5 ± 2.1 | 4.7 ± 2.1 | <0.01 |
| Eyelid-dark circles | 1.7 ± 1.3 | 2.2 ± 1.5 | <0.01 | 1.9 ± 1.1 | 2.4 ± 1.6 | 0.15 |
| Zygomatic-texture-red blood streaks | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.6 ± 1.2 | <0.01 | 0.3 ± 0.7 | 0.5 ± 1.2 | 0.24 |
| Tongue-color-dark purple | 0.8 ± 1.5 | 1.9 ± 2.2 | <0.01 | 0.8 ± 1.7 | 1.7 ± 1.6 | 0.06 |
| Tongue-texture-bruise | 0.2 ± 0.9 | 0.5 ± 1.5 | 0.03 | 0.2 ± 0.8 | 0.3 ± 0.7 | 0.61 |
| Sublingual vein-varicose and dark purple | 1.9 ± 1.5 | 3.8 ± 1.7 | <0.01 | 2.0 ± 1.9 | 4.7 ± 1.8 | <0.01 |
Note: P value <0.05.
Figure 1Predictor selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression model. (a) Tuning parameter (λ) selection in the LASSO model used 10-fold cross-validation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve was plotted versus log (λ). Dotted vertical lines were drawn at the optimal values by using the maximum criteria and the 1 standard error of the maximum criteria (the 1-SE criteria). (b) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 14 feature indicators. The dotted vertical line was plotted at the value selected using 10-fold cross-validation in figure (a). For the 1-SE criteria, the optimal λ resulted in six nonzero coefficients.
Figure 2Developed diagnostic nomogram for blood stasis constitution. The nomogram was developed in the primary group, with six indicators incorporated.
Figure 3(a) Calibration curve for primary data. (b) Calibration curve for validation data.
Figure 4(a) Decision curve for primary data. (b) Decision curve for validation data. The vertical axis represents the value of net benefit, and the horizontal axis represents the threshold level. Plotting net benefit in function of threshold level yields the decision curve. The blue line is the net benefit of treating all, the purple line is the net benefit of treating none, and the pink line is the net benefit of treating based on the BSC nomogram. The abscissa of the two intersection points (pink and blue, pink and purple) represents within the threshold range, the application of this nomogram is clinically useful.
Figure 5Images of typical facial and tongue features of BSC.