MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387861647 · doi:10.52842/conf.acadia.2021.048

Automated Generation of Custom Fit PPE Inserts

2021· article· en· W4387861647 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia Nahmad Vazquez, Li Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueACADIA quarterly · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research presents a machine learning-based interactive design method for the creation of customized inserts that improve the fit of the PPE 3M 1863 and 3M 8833 respiratory face masks. These two models are the most commonly used by doctors and professionals during the recent covid19 pandemic. The proper fit of the mask is crucial for their performance. Characteristics and fit of current leading market brands were analyzed to develop a parametric design software workflow that results in a 3D printed insert customized to specific facial features and the mask that will be used. The insert provides a perfect fit for the respirator mask. Statistical face meshes were generated from an anthropometric database, and 3D facial scans and photos were taken from 200 doctors and nurses on an NHS trust hospital. The software workflow can start from either a 2D image of the face (picture) or a 3D mesh taken from a scanning device. The platform uses machine learning and a parametric design workflow based on key performance facial parameters to output the insert between the face and the 3M masks. It also generates the 3d printing file, which can be processed onsite at the hospital. The 2D image approach and the 3D scan approach initializing the system were digitally compared, and the resultant inserts were physically tested by 20 frontline personnel in an NHS trust hospital. Finally, we demonstrate the criticality of proper fit on masks for doctors and nurses and the versatility of our approach augmenting an already tested product through customized digital design and fabrication.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACADIA quarterlySame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207