MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886108886 · doi:10.1109/qrs-c.2018.00081

Information Security Considerations for Wireless Infusion Pumps

2018· article· en· W2886108886 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Body Area Networks
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
FundersMinistère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation - Québec
KeywordsComputer securityWirelessComputer scienceInfusion pumpSoftwareInformation securityRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessTelecommunicationsMedicineOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless Infusion Pumps are an inevitable part of Hospital Delivery Organizations (HDOs). Nowadays there have been lots of cases of recalls of infusion pumps due to vulnerabilities existing in the devices that make it a safety concern for use on patients before patching the cyber security issues. This research has been conducted with the participation of Public Health Alberta to present an overview of what is the security considerations to design secure software for infusion pumps. In this paper, possible attacks have been specified to create an understanding of the potential dangers that exist for wireless infusion pumps. Moreover, components that should be secured have been identified. This paper proposes controls by incorporating security measures at the design phase of software development of Wireless Infusion Pumps.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Body Area NetworksFrench-language works237,207