| Literature DB >> 31877699 |
David Naranjo-Hernández1, Javier Reina-Tosina1, Laura M Roa1, Gerardo Barbarov-Rostán1, Nuria Aresté-Fosalba2, Alfonso Lara-Ruiz2, Pilar Cejudo-Ramos3,4, Francisco Ortega-Ruiz3,4.
Abstract
The purpose of this work is to describe a first approach to a smart bioimpedance spectroscopy device for its application to the estimation of body composition. The proposed device is capable of carrying out bioimpedance measurements in multiple configurable frequencies, processing the data to obtain the modulus and the bioimpedance phase in each of the frequencies, and transmitting the processed information wirelessly. Another novelty of this work is a new algorithm for the identification of Cole model parameters, which is the basis of body composition estimation through bioimpedance spectroscopy analysis. Against other proposals, the main advantages of the proposed method are its robustness against parasitic effects by employing an extended version of Cole model with phase delay and three dispersions, its simplicity and low computational load. The results obtained in a validation study with respiratory patients show the accuracy and feasibility of the proposed technology for bioimpedance measurements. The precision and validity of the algorithm was also proven in a validation study with peritoneal dialysis patients. The proposed method was the most accurate compared with other existing algorithms. Moreover, in those cases affected by parasitic effects the proposed algorithm provided better approximations to the bioimpedance values than a reference device.Entities:
Keywords: bioimpedance spectroscopy; body composition estimation; cole model; dispersion; parameter identification
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31877699 PMCID: PMC6983241 DOI: 10.3390/s20010070
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Prototype of the bioimpedance device.
Figure 2Data flow between the smart bioimpedance device and the personal monitoring device.
Figure 3Architecture of the sensing subsystem.
Figure 4Example of measurements used in calibration: (a) before calibration, (b) after calibration.
Figure 5Flow chart of the proposed algorithm.
Figure 6Singular points and geometric variables of the proposed algorithm.
Figure 7Circuit pattern used in the validation of the sensing subsystem.
Patients Anthropometric Characteristics of the Hardware Validation Study.
| Mens | Women | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of volunteers | 9 | 3 |
|
|
| |
| Weight (kg) | 95.8 | 18.6 |
| Age (years) | 60.6 | 7.6 |
| Height (cm) | 163.5 | 6.1 |
Figure 8Concordance analysis by Bland-Altman diagram.
Anthropometric Characteristics of the Software Validation Study Patients.
| Min | Medium | Max |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 31 | 61.8 | 86 | 15.6 |
| Weight (kg) | 39 | 71.9 | 123.5 | 16.7 |
| Height (cm) | 140 | 161.7 | 191 | 9.6 |
| Body Mass Index | 17.6 | 27.4 | 42.4 | 5.1 |
Error Analysis of EC3D and Comparison with other Existing Algoritms.
|
|
|
| Execution Time (sec) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Max | SD | Mean | Max | SD | Mean | Max | SD | Mean | Max | SD | |
|
| 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.68 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 1.92 | 1.92 | 0.00 |
|
| 0.38 | 1.51 | 0.23 | 1.73 | 8.70 | 1.26 | 0.39 | 2.02 | 0.31 | 0.04 | 0.34 | 0.02 |
|
| 0.54 | 1.92 | 0.13 | 3.13 | 12.25 | 0.80 | 0.63 | 2.33 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.19 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.37 | 1.01 | 0.15 | 0.87 | 3.60 | 0.58 | 0.21 | 0.72 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.15 | 0.46 | 0.07 | 0.51 | 2.73 | 0.38 | 0.10 | 0.55 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.19 | 1.51 | 0.22 | 0.55 | 4.00 | 0.59 | 0.09 | 0.61 | 0.10 | 0.55 | 0.89 | 0.02 |
|
| 0.73 | 5.99 | 0.74 | 1.98 | 18.01 | 2.26 | 0.40 | 3.98 | 0.51 | 71.36 | 929.05 | 83.30 |
|
| 0.28 | 0.75 | 0.11 | 0.80 | 4.40 | 0.35 | 0.15 | 0.88 | 0.07 | 5.83 | 6.82 | 0.15 |
|
| 0.14 | 0.51 | 0.08 | 0.44 | 1.50 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.25 | 0.04 | 70.64 | 148.5 | 29.98 |
Figure 9Cole diagram of patient in example A (normal situation).
Figure 10Cole diagram of patient in example A (high-frequency artefact).
Figure 11Classification by percentage of FAT [75] of patient in example B.
Figure 12Cole diagram of patient in example C (low-frequency artefact).
Figure 13Classification by Fat Mass Index [76] of patient in example C.
Comparison of BC parameters in the case of patient B throughout the study.
| (Liters) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meas. 1 | 15.5 | 16.7 | 27.3 | 19.9 | 42.7 | 36.6 |
| Meas. 2 | 18.8 | 18.8 | 20.5 | 20.4 | 39.3 | 39.3 |
| Meas. 3 | 17 | 17.1 | 18.6 | 18.6 | 35.7 | 35.7 |
| Meas. 4 | 17.3 | 17.3 | 19.9 | 19.9 | 37.2 | 37.2 |
| Meas. 5 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 19.4 | 19.3 | 35.3 | 35.3 |
| Meas. 6 | 16.3 | 16.3 | 19.8 | 19.8 | 36.2 | 36.1 |
| Meas. 7 | 16.4 | 16.4 | 20.3 | 20.3 | 36.8 | 36.7 |