Estimation of Breathing Rate with Confidence Interval Using Single-Channel CW Radar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breathing rate monitoring using continuous wave (CW) radar has gained much attention due to its contact-less nature and privacy-friendly characteristic. In this work, using a single-channel CW radar, a breathing rate estimation method is proposed that deals with system nonlinearity of a single-channel CW radar and realizes a reliable breathing rate estimate by including confidence intervals. To this end, time-varying dominant Doppler frequency of radar signal, in the range of breathing rate, is extracted in time-frequency domain. It is shown through simulation and mathematical modeling that the average of the dominant Doppler frequencies over time provides an estimation of breathing rate. However, this frequency is affected by noise components and random body movements over time. To address this issue, the sum of these unwanted components is extracted in time-frequency domain, and from their surrogate versions, bootstrap resamples of the measured signal are obtained. Accordingly, a 95% confidence interval is calculated for breathing rate estimation using the bootstrap approach. The proposed method is validated in three different postures including lying down, sitting, and standing, with or without random body movements. The results show that using the proposed algorithm, estimation of breathing rate is feasible using single-channel CW radar. It is also shown that even in presence of random body movements, average of absolute error of estimation for all three postures is 1.88 breath per minute, which represents 66% improvement as compared to the Fourier transform-based approach.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".