| Literature DB >> 24452256 |
Abstract
Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) systems integrate many previously separate clinical activities related to fetal monitoring. Promoting the use of ubiquitous fetal monitoring services with real time status assessments requires a robust information platform equipped with an automatic diagnosis engine. This paper presents the design and development of a mobile multi-agent platform-based open information systems (IMAIS) with an automated diagnosis engine to support intensive and distributed ubiquitous fetal monitoring. The automatic diagnosis engine that we developed is capable of analyzing data in both traditional paper-based and digital formats. Issues related to interoperability, scalability, and openness in heterogeneous e-health environments are addressed through the adoption of a FIPA2000 standard compliant agent development platform-the Java Agent Development Environment (JADE). Integrating the IMAIS with light-weight, portable fetal monitor devices allows for continuous long-term monitoring without interfering with a patient's everyday activities and without restricting her mobility. The system architecture can be also applied to vast monitoring scenarios such as elder care and vital sign monitoring.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24452256 PMCID: PMC3924463 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110100600
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Comparison of IMAIS and other proposed systems.
| Works | Service Domain | Multi-Agent System | Mobile Agent Adopted |
|---|---|---|---|
| De Meo | Personalized e-Health service access | Yes | No |
| Wu | Medical data transmission | Yes | No |
| Vaidehi | In-home monitoring | Yes | No |
| Camarinha-Matos and Vieira, 1999 [ | In-home monitoring | Yes | Yes |
| Su and Wu, 2011 [ | Health care monitoring | Yes | Yes |
| Kim, | Ubiquitous health care systems | Yes | Yes |
| IMAIS | Ubiquitous fetal monitoring | Yes | Yes |
Figure 1IMAIS use case diagram – obstetrician’s perspective.
Figure 2IMAIS use case diagram – gravida’s perspective.
Figure 3High level view of the preliminary IMAIS system design.
Figure 4IMAIS agent environment.
Figure 5The infrastructure of an MA-based fetal monitoring platform.
Figure 6Fetal Heart Rate (FHR) and uterine contraction data stored in the data server.
Figure 7XML document encoding the criteria of “Late Deceleration” symptom.
Figure 8Example patterns of each symptom: (a) Tachycardia; (b) Bradycardia; (c) Early Deceleration; (d) Late Deceleration; (e) Variable Deceleration—Type A; (f) Variable Deceleration—Type B.
The abnormity criteria used in the IMAIS.
| Symptom | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Tachycardia | Heart beat ratio ≥ 160 bpm. |
| Condition must last at least three minutes. | |
| Bradycardia | Heart beat ratio ≤ 110 bpm. |
| Condition must last at least three minutes. | |
| Early Deceleration | HRp < UCe, |
| HRp – HRs ≥ 30, | |
| HRs ≥ UCs + 5, | |
| B – HRp ≥ 15, | |
| Late Deceleration | HRp ≥ UCe, |
| HRp – HRs ≥ 30, | |
| B – HRp ≥ 15, | |
| Variable Deceleration —Type A | HRp – HRs ≤ 30, |
| HRs ≥ UCs + 5, | |
| B – HRp ≥ 15, | |
| Variable Deceleration —Type B | HRs ≥ UCs + 5, |
| B – HRp ≥ 15, | |
| HSp – B ≥ 10, | |
| HSe – HRe ≥ 10, |
Figure 9Illustrative example of key points extraction.
Figure 10Usage scenario from the perspective of medical staff.
Figure 11Usage scenario from the user’s perspective.
Figure 12JADE asynchronous message passing paradigm [29].
Figure 13Distributed architecture of JADE [29]
Figure 14Agent Interactions in IMAIS implementation from the perspective of medical staff.
Figure 15Agent interactions in IMAIS implementation from the perspective of the gravidas.
Summary of fetal heart rate monitoring.
| Deceleration | Tachycardia | Bradycardia | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doctor diagnostics | 47 | 16 | 2 | 66 |
| IMAIS diagnostics | 46 | 16 | 2 | 65 |
| Mobile alarm | 46 | 16 | 2 | 65 |
User Profiles (Medical Staff).
| Personal Information | Question Code | % |
|---|---|---|
| 30–40 | 13 | 65.0 |
| 40–50 | 7 | 35.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
| Male | 12 | 60.0 |
| Female | 8 | 40.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
| 2 or below | 5 | 25.0 |
| 2–5 | 13 | 65.0 |
| 5 or above | 2 | 10.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
| Yes | 20 | 100.0 |
| No | 0 | 0.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
| Yes | 19 | 95.0 |
| No | 1 | 5.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
User Profiles (Gravida).
| Personal Information | Question Code | % |
|---|---|---|
| 25–35 | 11 | 55.0 |
| 35–45 | 8 | 40.0 |
| 45 or above | 1 | 5.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
| Yes | 8 | 40.0 |
| No | 12 | 60.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
| Yes | 16 | 80.0 |
| No | 4 | 20.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
| Yes | 14 | 70.0 |
| No | 6 | 30.0 |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 |
Figure 16System usability/readability evaluation (medical staff group).
Figure 17System usability/readability evaluation (gravida group).