| Literature DB >> 35957453 |
Mohamed Bahache1, Abdou El Karim Tahari1, Jorge Herrera-Tapia2, Nasreddine Lagraa1, Carlos Tavares Calafate3, Chaker Abdelaziz Kerrache1.
Abstract
Remotely monitoring people's healthcare is still among the most important research topics for researchers from both industry and academia. In addition, with the Wireless Body Networks (WBANs) emergence, it becomes possible to supervise patients through an implanted set of body sensors that can communicate through wireless interfaces. These body sensors are characterized by their tiny sizes, and limited resources (power, computing, and communication capabilities), which makes these devices prone to have faults and sensible to be damaged. Thus, it is necessary to establish an efficient system to detect any fault or anomalies when receiving sensed data. In this paper, we propose a novel, optimized, and hybrid solution between machine learning and statistical techniques, for detecting faults in WBANs that do not affect the devices' resources and functionality. Experimental results illustrate that our approach can detect unwanted measurement faults with a high detection accuracy ratio that exceeds the 99.62%, and a low mean absolute error of 0.61%, clearly outperforming the existing state-of-art solutions.Entities:
Keywords: WBANs; body sensor; cloud computing; clustering; fault detection; machine learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35957453 PMCID: PMC9371421 DOI: 10.3390/s22155893
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Distribution rates of the used techniques.
Figure 2WBAN architecture overview.
Figure 3Our fault detection system in WBANs.
Figure 4Correlation phase workflow.
Figure 5PhysioBANK ATM window.
Experiment parameters.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Clinic Bank | PhysioBank ATM |
| DataBase | MIMIC |
| Record | 221n |
| Signal1 | ABPmean |
| Signal2 | ABPsys |
| Signal3 | ABPdias |
| Signal4 | HR |
| Signal5 | PULSE |
| Signal6 | RESP |
| Signal7 | SpO2 |
Figure 6Vital signs.
Figure 7Resulting decision tree.
Figure 8Kappa statistics for our approach when compared to 3 relevant alternative approaches in the literature.
Figure 9Mean absolute error for our approach when compared to 3 relevant alternative approaches in the literature.
Figure 10Detection accuracy for our approach when compared to 3 relevant alternative approaches in the literature.
Figure 11Proposed solution’s ROC curve.
TPR and FPR for each approach.
| Rate | Our Approach | KNN | Haque et al. [ | NaiveBayes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 99.80% | 98.10% | 98.10% | 97.10% |
|
| 0.60% | 2.2% | 21.6% | 53.6% |