| Literature DB >> 26007741 |
Enrique Gonzalez1, Raul Peña2, Cesar Vargas-Rosales3, Alfonso Avila4, David Perez-Diaz de Cerio5.
Abstract
This survey aims to encourage the multidisciplinary communities to join forces for innovation in the mobile health monitoring area. Specifically, multidisciplinary innovations in medical emergency scenarios can have a significant impact on the effectiveness and quality of the procedures and practices in the delivery of medical care. Wireless body sensor networks (WBSNs) are a promising technology capable of improving the existing practices in condition assessment and care delivery for a patient in a medical emergency. This technology can also facilitate the early interventions of a specialist physician during the pre-hospital period. WBSNs make possible these early interventions by establishing remote communication links with video/audio support and by providing medical information such as vital signs, electrocardiograms, etc. in real time. This survey focuses on relevant issues needed to understand how to setup a WBSN for medical emergencies. These issues are: monitoring vital signs and video transmission, energy efficient protocols, scheduling, optimization and energy consumption on a WBSN.Entities:
Keywords: emergency mobile healthcare; energy consumption; optimization system for adaptive model; wireless body sensor network
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26007741 PMCID: PMC4481935 DOI: 10.3390/s150511993
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Main indicators of external injury causes. INEGI, 2011 mortality rate per 100,000 inhabitants.
| Type of Injury | Rate of Men | Rate of Women | Total Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Homicides | 41 | 4.8 | 23.3 |
| Traffic accidents | 22.2 | 6.1 | 14.4 |
| Suicides | 7.8 | 1.9 | 4.9 |
| Falls | 3.2 | 0.8 | 2 |
| Drowning | 3.2 | 0.6 | 1.9 |
| Burns | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Poisonings | 1.8 | 0.5 | 1.2 |
| Total injuries | 80 | 15 | 48.3 |
Figure 1Main causes of death in Mexico, 2006–2011. Source: Death registry INEGI, 2011.
Figure 2Wireless body sensor network communicating through a mobile phone.
Figure 3Wireless Monitoring Platform for Emergency Situations. (A) Intra-WBSN communication; (B) Inter-WBSN communication; (C) Beyond-WBSN communication.
Main features of different communication protocols.
| PROTOCOL | BLE | ZIGBEE | WIFI | 4G LTE | ANT+ | NFC | NIKE+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROS | Continua Health Alliance technology (continuaalliance.org). Trade-off between energy consumption and bandwidth. In smartphones, sensors, tablets and laptops. Advanced encryption standard-128 algorithm. | Continua Health Alliance technology. Supports large-scale networks Transmits data over long distances. Low duty cycle. | Enabled in smartphones, tablets and laptops. The most efficient technology. Collision avoidance. High-speed wireless connectivity and allows communication between several devices. | High speed connectivity. Allows high definition video streaming. Mobility management system. Long range of connectivity. | Powered by a coin cell. Applications in healthcare and telemedicine. Sensors can remain in sleep mode for prolonged periods. Products from different manufacturers are interoperable. | The Passive component do not require energy source. Passive component can adopt simple forms [ Passive component can securely store personal data (e.g., credit or debit card information) [ | Allow monitoring of physical activity. Powered by a coin cell. |
| CONS | Electromagnetic interference. Communication between only 2 devices at the same time. Cyclic sleep options not enabled. (but can be programmed) | Low Bandwidth (only 250 kbps). Existing smartphones. ZB doesn’t implement a coexistence scheme. Very few medical devices for sale | High energy consumption. Not suited for body sensors. Need to improve security. High cost technology. | High energy consumption, inefficiency of Periodic Transfers and overhead. Bad congestion Control and security. Large urban areas. | Compared with BLE, ANT+ is less adopted by devices. Low scalability due to random access transmissions [ High power consumption in master nodes compared with BLE [ | Short range wireless link. Higher energy consumption compared with BLE and ANT+ Not enabled for healthcare Passive component contents data read-only. | Only works with Apple and Nike devices. Higher energy consumption compared with BLE and ANT+. |
| STANDARD RANGE [ | 1 to 100 m | 10 to 100 m | ~100 m | 1–10 miles | ~30 m | <0.2 m | ~10 m |
| TOPOLOGY [ | Star-bus | Mesh, Star, Point to Point | Star, Point to Point. | Ring, Star, chain, mixed. | Peer to Peer, Mesh | Point to Point | Point to Point |
| EFFICIENCY [ | 0.153 µW/bit | 185.9 µW/bit | 0.00525 µW/bit | 0.011 µW/bit | 0.71 µW/bit | Not specified | 2.48 µW/bit |
| LATENCY [ | <3 ms | <5 ms (beaconless mode, at 250 kbps) | 1.5 ms | 10 ms | Zero | Polled typically every second | ~1 s |
| USES FOR WBSNs | Intra-BAN Communication: glucose, Blood pressure, SPO2, Temperature, Heart Rate, ECG, watches and smartphones | Intra-BAN Communication: glucose, Blood pressure, SPO2, Temperature, Heart Rate and ECG. | Inter-BAN and Beyond-BAN Communication: Smartphones, wireless modems, tablets, laptops. | Inter-BAN and Beyond BAN Communication: Smartphones, wireless usb modems, tablets. | Intra-BAN communication: Heart Rate, Temperature, Blood pressure, glucose and smartphones. | Not applications for BAN’s | Intra-BAN communication: Heart Rate, smartphones, wrist bands and watches. |
Comparison between different energy efficient MAC protocols.
| PROTOCOLS | MAC OPERATION | ADVANTAGES | DISADVANTAGES | COMMENTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BodyMAC [ | TDMA | Flexible bandwidth allocation. Nodes and gateway synchronized allowing sleep mode. Good for periodic data sensing and event reporting. | Unsuitable scheme for collision avoidance. | Star topology and MICAz mote specification are used. |
| MEDMAC [ | ADAPTIVE TDMA | Maximize energy efficiency through dynamical adjustments for QoS requirements. Good for low rate (Class 0) and medium data rate (Class 1) medical applications. | Low performance for high data rate applications. | Star topology. TDMA synchronization. Energy efficiency optimized by dynamically adjusting QoS requirements. |
| NEW IMPROVED LEACH [ | TDMA/ Clustering | Distributed protocol, control information from the base station is not required. MD node is introduced to allow sleep mode periodically. | Extra overhead for dynamic clustering. | A clustering topology is used. Efficiency is increased 50% than LEACH protocol. |
| POWER EFFICIENT MAC [ | TDMA/superframe enabled | Better performance in energy saving and delay compared to WiseMAC, ZigBee, B-MAC, and X-MAC protocols Wakeup mechanism enabled to reduce energy consumption with sleep mode. | No existing evaluation for security and QoS parameters. Nodes must wake up to receive the beacon. | Network lifetime is increased thanks to an overhead reduction. Two priorities for traffic: periodic or normal, and random or emergency. |
| HIGHLY RELIABLE ENERGY-SAVING MAC [ | Distributed Queuing Body Area Network. Superframe is proposed | Qos parameters are considered. A Cross-layer fuzzy logic scheduler is used. By using Energy-aware radio-activation policies, sensors transmit at lowest possible level specified in 802.15.4. | Nodes must wake up to receive the beacon. | Star topology for BSN under two different realistic hospital scenarios. Matlab simulations are carried out using the CC2420 transmitter-receiver. |
| EQ-MAC [ | Hybrid TDMA and CSMA schemes | Efficient node’s battery usage and support for QoS based on the service differentiation concept (data prioritization traffic levels). | Data redundancy in the sensor network. Low performance for low data rates. High latency without traffic prioritization. | Sensor Simulator is used for large-scale networks. EQ-MAC outperforms Q-MAC and S-MAC protocols. |
Energy consumption according to different subsystems of sensor node i.
| Operation | Energy Consumption |
|---|---|
| Data sensing | |
| Data register | |
| TX and RX | |
| State shifting |