MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986248880 · doi:10.1109/memea.2013.6549765

Operating system performance measurements for Remote Patient Monitoring applications

2013· article· en· W1986248880 on OpenAlexaff
V. Joshi, Payam Moradshahi, Rafik Goubran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman multitaskingEmbedded systemComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Real-time operating systemMobile deviceReal-time computingRemote patient monitoringWirelessVariety (cybernetics)Operating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) is becoming vital part of healthcare improving quality of care. The RPM system uses variety of sensors and wireless technologies to monitor multiple biological and environmental signals simultaneously providing status and trend data for the patient. The RPM system can also provide alarms/alerts for the patient or the caregiver in real-time so that the patient gets assistance in timely manner when an acute event occurs. The RPM system must detect such events in real-time to generate alarms/alerts. Use of mobile devices like smartphones and/or tablets for RPM enables patient mobility and provides real-time monitoring capability. The mobile device Operating System (OS) used for real-time RPM needs to meet the hard real-time requirements for alerts/alarms generation. The General Purpose OS (GPOS) uses fair scheduling algorithm for multitasking while Real Time OS (RTOS) uses preemptive scheduling. This paper evaluates the real-time performance of GPOS and a RTOS (QNX) under variety of load condition for RPM application. The results of the measurements indicate that the mobile device OS used for RPM must provide a prioritizing mechanism to satisfy the hard real-time requirements when the mobile device is multitasking and/or overloaded.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207