Frontiers in public health · 2026
Human-centered industry 5.0 technologies for occupational risk reduction: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Risco-Ojeda Rusber Alberto, Moreno-Rojo Cesar, Figueroa-León Ruben Adrián, Chuqui-Diestra Saúl Ricardo, Escalante-Espinoza Nelver Javier, Ponce-Ramirez Juan Carlos, Bedoya-Justo Edgar Virgilio, Castañeda-Rodríguez Wendy Akemmy, Rodríguez-Yparraguirre Abel José, Rodríguez-Yparraguirre Carlos Diego
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The transition to Industry 5.0 is transforming manufacturing through the integration of smart technologies, while simultaneously increasing the need to protect workers' health and reduce occupational risks. This systematic review synthesized cross-sectoral evidence on human-centered Industry 5.0 technologies for assessing and reducing occupational risks, with a focus on ergonomic outcomes, worker-related factors, and the conditions influencing their implementation and transferability.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus and Web of Science following the PRISMA 2020 framework and predefined eligibility criteria based on PECO. Included studies were analyzed according to technology type, occupational risk addressed, ergonomic dimension, assessment method, reported outcomes, implementation conditions, and implications for occupational health and safety, yielding a total of 78 studies that met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: The reported results from individual studies included ergonomic assessment accuracies exceeding 95%, fatigue reductions of more than 50% in selected applications, and cycle-time reductions of up to 28.4%, along with improvements in task allocation, workload monitoring, and production efficiency. These values should not be interpreted as overall effects of Industry 5.0 technologies, given the heterogeneity of technologies, experimental designs, and assessment methods.
DISCUSSION: The evidence was limited by laboratory validation, a lack of longitudinal research, heterogeneous assessment methods, and insufficient real-world implementation in specific industrial sectors.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus and Web of Science following the PRISMA 2020 framework and predefined eligibility criteria based on PECO. Included studies were analyzed according to technology type, occupational risk addressed, ergonomic dimension, assessment method, reported outcomes, implementation conditions, and implications for occupational health and safety, yielding a total of 78 studies that met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: The reported results from individual studies included ergonomic assessment accuracies exceeding 95%, fatigue reductions of more than 50% in selected applications, and cycle-time reductions of up to 28.4%, along with improvements in task allocation, workload monitoring, and production efficiency. These values should not be interpreted as overall effects of Industry 5.0 technologies, given the heterogeneity of technologies, experimental designs, and assessment methods.
DISCUSSION: The evidence was limited by laboratory validation, a lack of longitudinal research, heterogeneous assessment methods, and insufficient real-world implementation in specific industrial sectors.