MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109149546 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.260164

Reliable Respiratory Rate Estimation from a Bed Pressure Array

2006· article· en· W2109149546 on OpenAlexaff
Megan Howell Jones, Rafik Goubran, Frank Knoefel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingMetric (unit)Reliability (semiconductor)Respiratory rateStatisticsComputer scienceEstimationVariance (accounting)MathematicsEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unobtrusive sleep monitoring allows older adults to have continuous monitoring during the night in their own homes. We propose a method to reliably estimate respiratory rate using a bed-based pressure sensor array. Movements are detected prior to respiratory rate estimation and suppressed. The amount of movement during an estimate and a weighting for the estimate are used to create a reliability metric. The reliability metric is scored out of 100 for each sensor where high scores denote more reliable data. Once respiratory rates were calculated, the mean reliability metric determined the estimate reliability. Nocturnal data from a male and female participant was analyzed. Results show better accuracy and validity than both analysis without movement suppression and analysis with movement suppression but without postprocessing data fusion. While more than 50% of estimates include movement corruption, only 15% are unreliable and, moreover, removal of unreliable estimates significantly reduces estimate variance and provides validity estimation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207