Trends in Smart Helmets With Multimodal Sensing for Health and Safety: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a form of the Internet of Things (IoT)-gateways, a smart helmet is one of the core devices that offers distinct functionalities. The development of smart helmets connected to IoT infrastructure helps promote connected health and safety in various fields. In this regard, we present a comprehensive analysis of smart helmet technology and its main characteristics and applications for health and safety. OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the trends in smart helmet technology and provides an overview of the current and future potential deployments of such technology, the development of smart helmets for continuous monitoring of the health status of users, and the surrounding environmental conditions. The research questions were as follows: What are the main purposes and domains of smart helmets for health and safety? How have researchers realized key features and with what types of sensors? METHODS: We selected studies cited in electronic databases such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EBSCO on smart helmets through a keyword search from January 2010 to December 2021. In total, 1268 papers were identified (Web of Science: 87/1268, 6.86%; EBSCO: 149/1268, 11.75%; ScienceDirect: 248/1268, 19.55%; and Google Scholar: 784/1268, 61.82%), and the number of final studies included after PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) study selection was 57. We also performed a self-assessment of the reviewed articles to determine the quality of the paper. The scoring was based on five criteria: test environment, prototype quality, feasibility test, sensor calibration, and versatility. RESULTS: Smart helmet research has been considered in industry, sports, first responder, and health tracking scenarios for health and safety purposes. Among 57 studies, most studies with prototype development were industrial applications (18/57, 32%), and the 2 most frequent studies including simulation were industry (23/57, 40%) and sports (23/57, 40%) applications. From our assessment-scoring result, studies tended to focus on sensor calibration results (2.3 out of 3), while the lowest part was a feasibility test (1.6 out of 3). Further classification of the purpose of smart helmets yielded 4 major categories, including activity, physiological and environmental (hazard) risk sensing, as well as risk event alerting. CONCLUSIONS: A summary of existing smart helmet systems is presented with a review of the sensor features used in the prototyping demonstrations. Overall, we aimed to explore new possibilities by examining the latest research, sensor technologies, and application platform perspectives for smart helmets as promising wearable devices. The barriers to users, challenges in the development of smart helmets, and future opportunities for health and safety applications are also discussed. In conclusion, this paper presents the current status of smart helmet technology, main issues, and prospects for future smart helmet with the objective of making the smart helmet concept a reality.
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 | 0.015 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".