| Literature DB >> 35003825 |
Umer Saeed1, Syed Yaseen Shah2, Jawad Ahmad3, Muhammad Ali Imran4, Qammer H Abbasi4, Syed Aziz Shah1.
Abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has affected more than 400 million people worldwide. With the recent rise of new Delta and Omicron variants, the efficacy of the vaccines has become an important question. The goal of various studies has been to limit the spread of the virus by utilizing wireless sensing technologies to prevent human-to-human interactions, particularly for healthcare workers. In this paper, we discuss the current literature on invasive/contact and non-invasive/non-contact technologies (including Wi-Fi, radar, and software-defined radio) that have been effectively used to detect, diagnose, and monitor human activities and COVID-19 related symptoms, such as irregular respiration. In addition, we focused on cutting-edge machine learning algorithms (such as generative adversarial networks, random forest, multilayer perceptron, support vector machine, extremely randomized trees, and k-nearest neighbors) and their essential role in intelligent healthcare systems. Furthermore, this study highlights the limitations related to non-invasive techniques and prospective research directions.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; COVID-19; Machine learning; Non-contact sensing; Non-invasive healthcare
Year: 2022 PMID: 35003825 PMCID: PMC8724017 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpha.2021.12.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm Anal ISSN: 2214-0883
Fig. 1Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) symptom monitoring system through wireless sensing. Distinct sensors are connected to the body and information is transmitted through a gateway such as a cell phone. Actions are applied by caretakers according to the conveyed information through sensors.
Summary of invasive/non-invasive technologies used to detect and monitor abnormal respiratory rate.
| Technology | Data | Results | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Camera | A total of 12 male and female volunteers were recorded at distinct resolutions | 100% accuracy on HD 720 | [ |
| Near-infrared camera | A total of 28 near-infrared videos and 11 with subject were uncovered and partially covered | 99.70% and 88.95% accuracy | [ |
| Smartphone camera | A total of 11 healthy subjects were recorded at distinct breathing frequencies | 1.43% average median error | [ |
| Thermal and depth camera | Physical activities were recorded by the home exercise bike | 100% accuracy approximately | [ |
| Thermal camera | A total of 41 adults and 20 children undergoing elective polysomnography were recorded | [ | |
| Ultrasound imaging | A total of 1,103 images (172 healthy, 277 pneumonia, and 654 COVID-19) | 89% accuracy | [ |
| Ultrasound imaging | A total of 623 videos including 99,209 ultrasound images of 70 patients | 92.4% and 91.1% accuracy | [ |
| X-radiation (X-ray) imaging | A total of 500 X-ray images in integration with generative adversarial networks | 95.2%–97.6% accuracy | [ |
| X-ray imaging | A total of 6,432 chest X-ray scan samples | 97.97% accuracy | [ |
| Computerized tomography (CT) scanning | A total of 150 CT images containing 53 cases of COVID-19 | 99.64% accuracy | [ |
| CT scanning | A total of 249 CT images (COVID-19) | 91.6% accuracy | [ |
| Radio-frequency (RF) sensing | A total of 10 healthy humans were instructed to imitate six distinct breathing patterns | 94.7% accuracy | [ |
| RF sensing | Wireless data (normal, shallow, and elevated breathing) | 91% accuracy | [ |
Fig. 2COVID-19 symptom detection and monitoring system through distinct invasive/non-invasive technologies merged with intelligent AI techniques. X-ray: X-radiation; CT: computerized tomography; RF: radio-frequency.
Fig. 3Camera-based breathing rate monitoring approach (reprinted from Ref. [82] with permission). ROI: region of interest.
Fig. 4Experimental setup to monitor abnormal respiratory using ultrasound signals (reprinted from Ref. [99] with permission).
Fig. 5Sample images of normal person and patients with COVID-19 (left) and histograms of the images (right). CT scanning of (A) patients with COVID-19 and (B) normal person. X-ray of (C) patients with COVID-19 and (D) normal person. (Reprint from Ref. [100] with permission).
Fig. 6Abnormal respiratory monitoring system using Wi-Fi sensing technology (reprinted from Ref. [42] with permission).
List of existing contributions in human activity monitoring and COVID-19 symptoms detection through invasive/non-invasive technology.
| Detection/monitoring | Classification technique | Technology | Accuracy (%) | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human motion | Hidden Markov Model | Wi-Fi sensing | 94.2 | [ |
| Human motion | Support vector machine (SVM) | Wi-Fi sensing | 99 | [ |
| Running, walking, standing, and sitting | SVM/long short-term memory | Wi-Fi sensing | 95 | [ |
| Human presence (static/dynamic) | Naïve Bayes | Wi-Fi sensing | 99 | [ |
| Whole body motion | Convolutional neural network | Wi-Fi sensing | 90 | [ |
| Sitting, walking, and jogging | Auto-encoder | Wi-Fi sensing | 91.1 | [ |
| Empty, sitting, standing, and walking | Recurrent neural network | Wi-Fi sensing | 90 | [ |
| Sleep | K-nearest neighbors (KNN) | Wi-Fi sensing | 93.88 | [ |
| Heart rate and respiratory rate | Dynamic time warping | Wi-Fi sensing | 94 | [ |
| Respiration rate | Exponentially weighted moving average | Wi-Fi sensing | 93.04 | [ |
| Walking, jogging, standing, and sitting | K-means | Radar sensing | 85 | [ |
| Running, walking, and crawling | KNN | Radar sensing | 93 | [ |
| Respiration rate | SVM | Software-defined radio | 85 | [ |
| Standing up/sitting down | Random forest (RFo) | Software-defined radio | 96.70 | [ |
| Lying, crawling, walking, and standing | KNN | Software-defined radio | 85 | [ |
| Lying, sitting, and standing | RFo | Ultra-wideband radio | 95.6 | [ |
| COVID-19 symptoms | RFo | Chest X-ray | 97 | [ |
| COVID-19 symptoms | Bagging tree | X-ray and CT images | 99 | [ |
| COVID-19 symptoms | SVM | X-ray | 85.96 | [ |
| COVID-19 symptoms | RFo | Blood test | 97 | [ |
| COVID-19 symptoms | RFo | Blood test | 86 | [ |
| COVID-19 symptoms | Naïve Bayes | Textual clinical reports | 96.2 | [ |
| COVID-19 symptoms | ResNet-50 | Coughs recorded on smartphone | 95.01 | [ |
Fig. 7Generic framework toward COVID-19 symptom detection.
Time-domain features.
| Title | Expression |
|---|---|
| Mean | |
| Min | |
| Max | |
| Variance | |
| Root mean square | |
| Kurtosis | |
| Skewness | |
| Range | |
| Interquartile range | |
| Standard deviation |
Frequency-domain features.
| Title | Expression |
|---|---|
| Signal energy | |
| Spectrum entropy | |
| Fast Fourier transform | |
| Frequency peak | |
| Spectral probability |
Fig. 8Distinct effective machine learning classifiers used to detect and monitor symptoms of COVID-19. G: generator; D: discriminatror.