Validation of ThermoHuman automatic thermographic software for assessing foot temperature before and after running

• Published in: Journal of thermal biology 2020-08, Vol.92, p.102639-102639, Article 102639
• Main Authors: Requena-Bueno, Lara, Priego-Quesada, Jose Ignacio, Jimenez-Perez, Irene, Gil-Calvo, Marina, Pérez-Soriano, Pedro
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Computer programs; Exercise; Feet; Image processing; Infrared thermography; Running; Software; Thermal image
• ISSN: 0306-4565; 1879-0992
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2020.102639

The aim of the study was to evaluate an automatic thermographic software package (ThermoHuman®) for assessing skin temperature on the soles of the feet before and after running and to compare it with two manual definitions of the regions of interest (ROIs). 120 thermal images of the soles of the feet of 30 participants, at two measurement points (before and after running 30 min) and on two measurement days were analyzed. Three different models of thermographic image analyses were used to obtain the mean temperature of 9 ROIs: A) ThermoHuman (automatic definition of ROIs using ThermoHuman® software), B) Manual (manual delimitation of ROIs by proportion criteria), and C) Manual-TH (manual delimitation of ROIs in an attempt to replicate the regions analyzed by ThermoHuman). ThermoHuman resulted in an 86% reduction in time involved compared to manual delimitation. Fourteen of the 120 images (12%) presented some error in one or more of the ROI delimitations. Although the three procedures presented significant differences between them (53% in the comparison between ThermoHuman and Manual, 47% between ThermoHuman and Manual-TH, and 28% between Manual and Manual-TH), all differences had a small effect size (ES 0.2–0.4) or lower (ES 0.8). In conclusion, ThermoHuman® software was observed to be time-saving for image analysis with excellent reliability. Although results suggest that ThermoHuman® and manual methods are both valid in themselves, combining them is not recommended due to the differences observed between them. •Analysis using ThermoHuman resulted in a reduction of 86% of the time.•ThermoHuman presents in 12% of the images an error in its delimitation.•Differences between manual and automatic definition has a small effect size.•Reliability between ThermoHuman and both manual procedures was excellent.