Smart Mat for Respiratory Activity Detection: Study in a Clinical Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss in this paper a study of a smart and unobtrusive mattress in a clinical setting on a population with cardiorespiratory problems. Up to recently, the vast majority of studies with unobtrusive sensors are done with healthy populations. The unobtrusive monitoring of the Respiratory Rate (RR) is essential for proposing better diagnoses. Thus, new industrial and research activity on smart mattresses is targeting respiratory rate in an Internet-of-Things (IoT) context. In our work, we are interested in the performances of a microbend fiber optic sensor (FOS) mattress on 81 subjects admitted in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) by estimating the RR from their ballistocardiograms (BCG). Our study proposes a new RR estimator, based on harmonic plus noise models (HNM) and compares it with known estimators such as MODWT and CLIE. The goal is to examine, using a more representative and bigger dataset, the performances of these methods and of the smart mattress in general. Results of applying these three estimators on the BCG show that MODWT is more accurate with an average mean absolute error (MAE) of $$1.97\,\pm \,2.12\;\text {BPM}$$ . However, the HNM estimator has space for improvements with estimation errors of $$2.91 \pm 4.07\;\text {BPM}$$ . The smart mattress works well within a standard RR range of 10–20 breaths-per-minute (BPM) but gets less accurate with a bigger range of estimation. These results highlight the need to test these sensors in much more realistic contexts .
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".