The first paper that I cite has a very illustrative video and is a seminal paper in this field.
Table 8 in the review paper that you refer to shows a trend of estimation techniques getting better over time. In the latest study from 5 years ago the mean error was down to 6.47.
My broader point is:
the error rate might be brought down even further by better methods, video quality, and priors
this might so that it a valid proxy for fever
This might be very cost-effective on a population level, given the zero marginal cost of software
The first paper that I cite has a very illustrative video and is a seminal paper in this field.
Table 8 in the review paper that you refer to shows a trend of estimation techniques getting better over time. In the latest study from 5 years ago the mean error was down to 6.47.
My broader point is:
the error rate might be brought down even further by better methods, video quality, and priors
this might so that it a valid proxy for fever
This might be very cost-effective on a population level, given the zero marginal cost of software
However, I do agree that this is not trivial.