MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080575404 · doi:10.1109/memea.2014.6860109

Using a real-time operating system for multitasking in Remote Patient Monitoring

2014· article· en· W2080575404 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Rockwood, Vilas Joshi, Kevin F. Sullivan, Rafik Goubran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman multitaskingReal-time operating systemComputer scienceReal-time computingResponse timeScheduling (production processes)Embedded systemProcess (computing)Real-time dataRemote patient monitoringOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) systems will play an important role in the future of healthcare. They will be used to monitor chronic conditions, but may also be employed to detect acute medical conditions and generate alarms in real-time. This real-time responsiveness is a critical design criterion for acute condition detection. The data rate of each sensor represents a hard real-time threshold; if an RPM system cannot process incoming data as quickly as it arrives, its perception of a patient's health status will gradually begin to lag behind that patient's actual status. One effective way to address this issue is to select an operating system (OS) that can effectively manage data analysis for the highest priority tasks under all possible CPU load conditions. This paper evaluates the performance of a real-time operating system (RTOS)-based multi-sensor RPM system. The real-time system performance is measured against a hard realtime processing threshold for five simulated sensor inputs with varying priority levels. The results demonstrate that preemptive scheduling, employed by the RTOS, allows an RPM system under heavy processing load to consistently meet the hard real-time threshold requirements for acute condition detection.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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