Smart Furniture Using Radar Technology for Cardiac Health Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The integration of radar technology into smart furniture represents a practical approach to health monitoring, circumventing the concerns regarding user convenience and privacy often encountered by conventional smart home systems. Radar technology's inherent non-contact methodology, privacy-preserving features, adaptability to diverse environmental conditions, and high precision characteristics collectively establish it a compelling alternative for comprehensive health monitoring within domestic environments. In this paper, we introduce a mm-wave radar system positioned strategically behind a seat, featuring an algorithm capable of identifying unique cardiac waveform patterns for healthy subjects. These patterns are characterized by two peaks followed by a valley in each cycle, which can be correlated to ECG, enabling effective cardiac waveform monitoring. The provided algorithm excels in discerning variations in heart patterns, particularly in individuals with prolonged corrected QT intervals, by minimizing high frequency breathing interference and ensuring accurate pattern recognition. Additionally, this paper addresses the influence of body movements in seated individuals, conducting a comprehensive study on heart rate variability and estimation. Experiment results demonstrate a maximum heart rate variability error of 30 milliseconds and an average relative error of 4.8% in heart rate estimation, showcasing the efficacy of the proposed method utilizing variational mode decomposition and a multi-bin 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".