Why the study?
An algorithm was needed to measure respiration rate on an embedded device suitable for use by a field robot during relief operations.
Does a respiration rate measurement system using an Information Filter on an embedded device accurately measure respiration rate compared to a spirometer?
Does a respiration rate measurement system using an Information Filter on an embedded device accurately measure respiration rate compared to a spirometer?
An embedded device algorithm using an Information Filter and PPG sensor can measure respiration rate with approximately 80% accuracy compared to a spirometer.
May enable portable respiration monitoring; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
In this work, an algorithm was developed to measure respiration rate for an embedded device that can be used by a field robot for relief operations. With this algorithm, the rate measurement was calculated based on direct influences of respiratory-induced intensity variation (RIIV) on blood flow in cardiovascular pathways. For this, a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor was used to determine changes in heartbeat frequencies. The PPG sensor readings were filtered using an Information Filter and a fast Fourier transform (FFT) to determine the state of RIIV. With a relatively light initialization, the information filter can estimate unknown variables based on a series of measurements containing noise and other inaccuracies. Therefore, this filter is suitable for application in an embedded device. For faster calculation time in the implementation, the FFT analysis was calculated only for a major peak in frequency domain. Test and measurement of respiration rate was conducted based on the device algorithm and spirometer. Heartbeat measurements were also evaluated by comparing the heartbeat data of the PPG sensor and pulse-oximeter. Based on the test, the implemented algorithm can measure the respiration rate with approximately 80% accuracy compared with the spirometer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prasetiyo et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: