| Literature DB >> 35161951 |
Mustafa Musa Jaber1,2, Thamer Alameri3, Mohammed Hasan Ali4,5, Adi Alsyouf6, Mohammad Al-Bsheish7, Badr K Aldhmadi8, Sarah Yahya Ali1, Sura Khalil Abd1,9, Saif Mohammed Ali1, Waleed Albaker10, Mu'taman Jarrar11,12.
Abstract
Today, COVID-19-patient health monitoring and management are major public health challenges for technologies. This research monitored COVID-19 patients by using the Internet of Things. IoT-based collected real-time GPS helps alert the patient automatically to reduce risk factors. Wearable IoT devices are attached to the human body, interconnected with edge nodes, to investigate data for making health-condition decisions. This system uses the wearable IoT sensor, cloud, and web layers to explore the patient's health condition remotely. Every layer has specific functionality in the COVID-19 symptoms' monitoring process. The first layer collects the patient health information, which is transferred to the second layer that stores that data in the cloud. The network examines health data and alerts the patients, thus helping users take immediate actions. Finally, the web layer notifies family members to take appropriate steps. This optimized deep-learning model allows for the management and monitoring for further analysis.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; IoT sensors; cloud computing; deep learning; healthcare data; wearable sensors
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161951 PMCID: PMC8838838 DOI: 10.3390/s22031205
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1IoT with cloud involvement for the COVID-19 situation.
Comparison analysis on conventional methods.
| Method | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| ETEDL | Integrates the fog, cloud, and wireless body network and uses clinical decision-making concepts. | This method can only track a patient’s health condition up to 97.5% accuracy. |
| BG5D EDL | Effective deep-learning architecture to support data privacy. | Three-phase reconciliation global DL framework that is less than our proposed work. |
| ODBSN | Reduce the false recognition rate and minimize the computation time. | A Bayesian optimization algorithm is utilized only during the classification process. |
| MHCNN | The effectiveness of an IoT wearable-sensor-based remote health-monitoring system for COVID-19 patient health conditions can be measured. | The temperature and cough threshold values are used to investigate particular COVID-19 infection features. This limitation is considered a major drawback of this proposed work. |
Figure 2Three-layer design of COVID-19-patient health-monitoring framework.
Figure 3Process of convolute neural network.
Figure 4Accuracy analysis with various numbers of patients and locations.
Overall efficiency.
| Measure | Value | Derivations |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.9998 | TPR =TP/(TP + FN) |
| Specificity | 0.9984 | SPC = TN/(FP + TN) |
| Precision | 0.9984 | PPV = TP/(TP + FP) |
| Negative Predictive Value | 0.9998 | NPV = TN/(TN + FN) |
| False Positive Rate | 0.0016 | FPR = FP/(FP + TN) |
| False Discovery Rate | 0.0016 | FDR = FP/(FP +TP) |
| False Negative Rate | 0.0002 | FNR = FN/(FN + TP) |
| Accuracy | 0.9991 | ACC = (TP + TN)/(P + N) |
| F1 Score | 0.9991 | F1 = 2TP/(2TP + FP + FN) |
| Matthews Correlation | 0.9982 | TPsTN − FP |
Figure 5Error-rate analysis with a various number of patients and locations.
Effectiveness of the system.
| Methods | Number of Patients | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 100 | 150 | 200 | 250 | 300 | 350 | 400 | 450 | 500 | |
| ETEDL | 92.47 | 93.96 | 94.23 | 92.44 | 93.53 | 94.45 | 94.9 | 94.05 | 92.71 | 93.91 |
| BG5D EDL | 94.54 | 93.67 | 94.4 | 93.74 | 93.1 | 93.89 | 94.65 | 94.02 | 93.84 | 93.57 |
| ODBSN | 95.43 | 95.7 | 95.67 | 95.89 | 96.61 | 96.38 | 96.53 | 96.17 | 96.05 | 96.2 |
| MHCNN | 98.85 | 98.78 | 98.74 | 98.33 | 98.5 | 98.44 | 98.34 | 98.81 | 98.56 | 98.67 |
|
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ETEDL | 94.28 | 94.6 | 94.25 | 94.83 | 93.53 | 92.61 | 94.65 | 94.93 | 94.58 | 93.37 |
| BG5D EDL | 93.55 | 94.8 | 94.12 | 95.75 | 94.96 | 94.02 | 93.87 | 93.71 | 93.96 | 95.4 |
| ODBSN | 96.75 | 95.7 | 96.33 | 96.46 | 96.1 | 96.98 | 95.39 | 95.91 | 96.73 | 96.51 |
| MHCNN | 98.35 | 98.78 | 98.67 | 98.31 | 98.74 | 98.32 | 98.27 | 98.48 | 98.44 | 98.3 |
Figure 6Fit-rate analysis with various numbers of patients and locations.