| Literature DB >> 34948549 |
Radwa Ahmed Osman1, Sherine Nagy Saleh2, Yasmine N M Saleh3, Mazen Nabil Elagamy2.
Abstract
Since 2020, the world is still facing a global economic and health crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic. One approach to fighting this global crisis is to track COVID-19 cases by wireless technologies, which requires receiving reliable, efficient, and accurate data. Consequently, this article proposes a model based on Lagrange optimization and a distributed deep learning model to assure that all required data for tracking any suspected COVID-19 patient is received efficiently and reliably. Finding the optimum location of the Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) reader relevant to the base station results in the reliable transmission of data. The proposed deep learning model, developed using the one-dimensional convolutional neural network and a fully connected network, resulted in lower mean absolute squared errors when compared to state-of-the-art regression benchmarks. The proposed model based on Lagrange optimization and deep learning algorithms is evaluated when changing different network parameters, such as requiring signal-to-interference-plus-noise-ratio, reader transmission power, and the required system quality-of-service. The analysis of the obtained results, which indicates the appropriate transmission distance between an RFID reader and a base station, shows the effectiveness and the accuracy of the proposed approach, which leads to an easy and efficient tracking system.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Internet of Things; Lagrange optimization; Radio Frequency Identifier; deep learning; efficiency; pandemic; reliability
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34948549 PMCID: PMC8701443 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182412941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1COVID safety precaution.
Figure 2Proposed tracking system model flowchart.
Example of COVID-tracking actions based on the received data.
| Conditions | Action |
|---|---|
| P(A) & P(B) | Received data should be stored in the database until it is confirmed that the target people are safe |
| P(A) & P(C) | Immediate Isolation and tracking of all people who were in close contact |
| P(A) & P(D) | Immediate Isolation and tracking of all people who were in close contact |
| P(A) & P(B) & P(C) | Immediate Isolation and tracking of all people who were in close contact |
| P(A) & P(B) & P(D) | Immediate Isolation and tracking of all people who were in close contact |
| P(A) & P(B) & P(C) & P(D) | Immediate Isolation and tracking of all people who were in close contact |
| P(E) & P(B) | There is no need to save the data |
| P(E) & P(C) | For safety, save the data until it is confirmed that the target people are safe |
| P(E) & P(D) | For safety, save the data until it is confirmed that the target people are safe |
| P(E) & P(B) & P(C) | For safety, save the data until it is confirmed that the target people are safe |
| P(E) & P(B) & P(D) | For safety, save the data until it is confirmed that the target people are safe |
| P(E) & P(B) & P(C) & P(D) | For safety, save the data until it is confirmed that the target people are safe |
| P(E) & P(F) | There is no need to save the data |
| P(E) & P(D) | There is no need to save the data |
| P(E) & P(D) | There is no need to save the data |
| P(E) & P(F) & P(C) | There is no need to save the data |
| P(E) & P(F) & P(D) | There is no need to save the data |
| P(E) & P(F) & P(C) & P(D) | There is no need to save the data |
Figure 3Proposed deep learning model.
System parameters.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
|
| 33 dBm [ |
|
| −21 dBm [ |
|
| 10 KHz [ |
|
| 915 MHz [ |
|
| 0.8 [ |
|
| 23 dBm [ |
| 20 dB | |
|
| 0.8 [ |
The statistical description of the dataset.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of records | 90,288 | 90,288 | 90,288 | 90,288 | 90,288 |
| Mean | 0.920 | 23.698 | 15.471 | 122.831 | 12.862 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.158 | 11.010 | 6.433 | 68.597 | 17.061 |
| Minimum | 0.100 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.001 |
| Maximum | 0.999 | 33.000 | 20.000 | 250.000 | 129.721 |
Figure 4Pearson correlation of all variables.
Results of average 10-fold cross-validation for the benchmarks and the proposed model.
| MAE | MSE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train | Test | Train | Test | |
| LR | 6.05 | 6.05 | 81.67 | 81.68 |
| Ada | 5.03 | 5.04 | 42.1 | 42.36 |
| SVR | 1.16 | 1.16 | 7.74 | 7.75 |
| MLP | 1.09 | 1.09 | 3.71 | 3.73 |
| Proposed model | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
Figure 5Mean absolute error generated by training and validation data.
Figure 6The overall probability of suspected infection versus the number of transmitted records.
Figure 7Interference distance between an RFID reader and any transmitting devices (m) versus required distance between RFID and BS (m).
Figure 8Required SINR (dB) versus required distance between RFID and BS (m).
Figure 9Required QoS versus required distance between an RFID reader and BS (m).
Figure 10RFID reader transmission power (P) (dBm) versus the required distance between an RFID reader and BS (m).
Figure 11RFID reader transmission power (P) (dBm) versus overall system data rate (bit/s).
Figure 12Interference Distance between an RFID reader and any transmitting devices (m) versus required distance between RFID and BS (m).
Figure 13The required distance between an RFID reader and BS (m) versus overall system data rate (bit/s).