A reliable design of Wireless Body Area Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a reliable topology design and provisioning approach for Wireless Body Area Networks (named RTDP-WBAN) that takes into account the mobility of the patient while guaranteeing a reliable data delivery required to support healthcare applications' needs. To do so, we first propose a 3D coordinate system able to calculate the coordinates of relay-sensor nodes in different body postures and movements. This system uses a 3D-model of a standard human body and a specific set of node positions with stable communication links, forming a virtual backbone. Next, we investigate the optimal relay nodes positioning jointly with the reliable and cost-effective data routing for different body postures and movements. Therefore, we use an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) model, that is able to find the optimal number and locations of relay nodes and calculate the optimal data routing from sensors and relays towards the sink, minimizing both the network setup cost and the energy consumption. We solve the model in dynamic WBAN (Stand, Sit and Walk) scenarios, and compare its performance to other relaying approaches. Experiment results showed that our realistic and dynamic WBAN design approach significantly improves results obtained in the literature, in terms of reliability, energy-consumption and number of relays deployed on the body.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".