Comparing metrological properties of pressure-sensitive mats for continuous patient monitoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure-sensitive mat (PSM) technology offers several advantages as a sensor modality for patient monitoring since it is non-contact and unobtrusive. However, as we move to deploy PSM for long-term continuous patient monitoring, we must consider and characterize their metrological properties that arise due to their electrical, mechanical or optical construction. We evaluate the dynamic metrological properties of rise time, creep, percent change in creep, drift, and repeatability for three different PSM technologies from three vendors, namely, S4 (Kinotex fiber-optics), Tekscan (resistive ink), and XSensor (capacitive). Both long-term (14.5 hrs) and repeated short-term experiments (1 min) were conducted using two anthropometric models exhibiting contact pressures representative of adult and neonatal patients. Long-term experiments were conducted to characterize rise time, creep, percent change in creep, and drift for each sensor. With both pressure models, the XSensor exhibited the fastest dynamic response in terms of rise and recovery times, while Tekscan exhibited the slowest responses. S4 and Tekscan present with an expected decrease in drift with application of the adult model, but XSensor shows the opposite trend. Short-term experiments were conducted to measure repeatability with four application-removal repetitions for 1 min each. The coefficient of variation (CoV) was computed for each sensor as a measure of repeatability. For both pressure models, the smaller CoV of XSensor implies greater repeatability and hence, greater reliability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it