MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321634156 · doi:10.56979/401/2022/77

Prediction of Electric Power Demand of HVACs for Operating Rooms in Case of Dynamic Set Points of Temperature: A Case Study

2022· article· en· W4321634156 on OpenAlexaff
Tariq Inayat, Inam Ullah, Iftikhar Ahmad, Amanullah Yasin, Mubasher Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing & Biomedical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkElectric powerSet (abstract data type)Power consumptionPower (physics)Recurrent neural networkPower demandElectric power systemArtificial intelligenceMachine learningIndustrial engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In healthcare settings, particularly in areas such as operating rooms and intensive care units, there is a need for a dynamically controlled temperature environment that can adapt to the changing needs of both patients and healthcare workers. This is due to the fact that the desired temperature can vary depending on the condition of the patient and the specific requirements of surgical and treatment procedures. To address this need, our objective is to develop a tool for predicting the electric power needed to maintain a desired temperature in these critical care areas. Previous research has employed artificial learning algorithms and mathematical equations to predict electric power for various types and sizes of buildings, with promising results. However, our study focuses specifically on critical care areas within hospitals and utilizes fluctuating temperature set-points to predict power demand using historical weather data and Building Management System (BMS) data. We employed both Multi-Layer Artificial Neural Network (ML-ANN) and Long short-term memory (LSTM) models for this purpose and found that ML-ANN outperformed LSTM. The results showed that the ML-ANN model performed better than the LSTM model, with a testing accuracy of 96% compared to 78% for the LSTM model. This indicates that the ML-ANN model was more accurate in predicting the power consumption for the desired temperature in the operating room.

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 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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computing & Biomedical InformaticsSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207