4.6 Article

Non-contact respiration monitoring using impulse radio ultrawideband radar in neonates

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.190149

关键词

non-contact sensor; impulse radio ultrawideband radar; newborn; respiratory rate; neonatal intensive care unit

资金

  1. Bio and Medical Technology Development Program (Next Generation Biotechnology) through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2017M3A9E2064735]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vital sign monitoring in neonates requires adhesive electrodes, which often damage fragile newborn skin. Because impulse radio ultrawideband (IR-UWB) radar has been reported to recognize chest movement without contact in adult humans, IR-UWB may be used to measure respiratory rates (RRs) in a non-contact fashion. We investigated the feasibility of radar sensors for respiration monitoring in neonates without any respiratory support to compare the accuracy and reliability of radar measurements with those of conventional impedance pneumography measurements. In the neonatal intensive care unit, RRs were measured using radar (RRRd) and impedance pneumography (RRIP) simultaneously. The neonatal voluntary movements were measured using the radar sensor and categorized into three levels (low [M-0], intermediate [M-1] and high [M-2]). RRRd highly agreed with RRIP (r = 0.90; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.846 [0.835-0.856]). For the M-0 movement, there was good agreement between RRRd and RRIP (ICC = 0.893; mean bias -0.15 [limits of agreement (LOA) -9.6 to 10.0]). However, the agreement was slightly lower for the M-1 (ICC = 0.833; mean bias = 0.95 [LOA -11.4 to 13.3]) and M-2 (ICC = 0.749; mean bias = 3.04 [LOA -9.30 to 15.4]) movements than for the M-0 movement. In conclusion, IR-UWB radar cart provide accurate and reliable estimates of RR in neonates in a non-contact fashion. The performance of radar measurements could be affected by neonate movement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据