An EMI-Aware Prioritized Wireless Access Scheme for e-Health Applications in Hospital Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless communications technologies can support efficient healthcare services in medical and patient-care environments. However, using wireless communications in a healthcare environment raises two crucial issues. First, the RF transmission can cause electromagnetic interference (EMI) to biomedical devices, which could critically malfunction. Second, the different types of electronic health (e-Health) applications require different quality of service (QoS). In this paper, we introduce an innovative wireless access scheme, called EMI-aware prioritized wireless access, to address these issues. First, the system architecture for the proposed scheme is introduced. Then, an EMI-aware handshaking protocol is proposed for e-Health applications in a hospital environment. This protocol provides safety to the biomedical devices from harmful interference by adapting transmit power of wireless devices based on the EMI constraints. A prioritized wireless access scheme is proposed for channel access by two different types of applications with different priorities. A Markov chain model is presented to study the queuing behavior of the proposed system. Then, this queuing model is used to optimize the performance of the system given the QoS requirements. Finally, the performance of the proposed wireless access scheme is evaluated through extensive simulations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".