MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283155339 · doi:10.1186/s12911-022-01886-7

AEDNav: indoor navigation for locating automated external defibrillator

2022· article· en· W4283155339 on OpenAlexafffund
Gaurav Rao, Vijay Mago, Pawan Lingras, David W. Savage

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityNOSM UniversitySaint Mary's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLakehead University
KeywordsComputer scienceReal-time computingMobile deviceMatching (statistics)Automated external defibrillatorPath (computing)Point (geometry)Computer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In a sudden cardiac arrest, starting CPR and applying an AED immediately are the two highest resuscitation priorities. Many existing mobile applications have been developed to assist users in locating a nearby AED. However, these applications do not provide indoor navigation to the AED location. The time required to locate an AED inside a building due to a lack of indoor navigation systems will reduce the patient's chance of survival. The existing indoor navigation solutions either require special hardware, a large dataset or a significant amount of initial work. These requirements make these systems not viable for implementation on a large-scale. METHODS: The proposed system collects Wi-Fi information from the existing devices and the path's magnetic information using a smartphone to guide the user from a starting point to an AED. The information collected is processed using four techniques: turn detection method, Magnetic data pattern matching method, Wi-Fi fingerprinting method and Closest Wi-Fi location method to estimate user location. The user location estimations from all four techniques are further processed to determine the user's location on the path, which is then used to guide the user to the AED location. RESULTS: The four techniques used in the proposed system Turn detection, Magnetic data pattern matching, Closest Wi-Fi location and Wi-Fi fingerprinting can individually achieve the accuracy of 80% with the error distance ± 9.4 m, ± 2.4 m, ± 4.6 m, and ± 4.6 m respectively. These four techniques, applied individually, may not always provide stable results. Combining these techniques results in a robust system with an overall accuracy of 80% with an error distance of ± 2.74 m. In comparison, the proposed system's accuracy is higher than the existing systems that use Wi-Fi and magnetic data. CONCLUSION: This research proposes a novel approach that requires no special hardware, large scale data or significant initial work to provide indoor navigation. The proposed system AEDNav can achieve an accuracy similar to the existing indoor navigation systems. Implementing this indoor navigation system could reduce the time to locate an AED and ultimately increase patient survival during sudden cardiac arrest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207