MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416850981 · doi:10.3390/app152312623

A Novel Modular Framework for Secure and Scalable Remote Health Monitoring: RHMS

2025· article· en· W4416850981 on OpenAlexafffund
Ehesan Maimaitijiang, Irsad Kures, Yasin Mamatjan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersThompson Rivers University
KeywordsScalabilityInteroperabilityModular designAuditLow latency (capital markets)Scope (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Remote health monitoring for time-critical conditions (e.g., acute stroke) demands rapid, reliable data delivery and immediate clinical interpretation. However, existing Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) frameworks often exhibit fragmented designs, latency bottlenecks, and integration challenges when onboarding new sensors or clinical algorithms. Methods: To address these gaps, we introduce a unified Remote Health Monitoring System (RHMS) that combines MQTT-driven sensor transport, a pattern-oriented software architecture, and blockchain-based immutable audit logging. Results: In a TRL 3–4 technical feasibility evaluation using synthetic load and a 30 min smartwatch trace, RHMS achieved a median end-to-end latency of 480 ms (IQR 110 ms; P95 < 600 ms) under 500 concurrent 1 Hz streams and a peak throughput of 545 streams/s in controlled environments. The system emits algorithmic risk alerts from an integrated model; no adjudicated clinical diagnoses were performed. A modeled rollup-backed audit log estimates a per-record cost of $0.00016 (USD). Conclusion: RHMS demonstrates technical feasibility and interoperability that aligns with clinical recommendations. Clinical validation is out of scope for this study and will require prospective trials.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207