Key result
A non-contact breathing rate estimation method using an Artificial Hydrocarbon Network achieved a percentage error of 2.19±2.1 and approximately 99% agreement with the reference.
Why the study?
Contact sensors for breathing monitoring have disadvantages such as in burn patients with vulnerable skin, prompting the need for contactless monitoring systems.
Does a non-contact machine learning system using an Artificial Hydrocarbon Network accurately estimate breathing rate compared to reference sensors in healthy subjects?
Does a non-contact machine learning system using an Artificial Hydrocarbon Network accurately estimate breathing rate compared to reference sensors in healthy subjects?
A novel non-contact breathing rate estimation method using an Artificial Hydrocarbon Network demonstrated high accuracy and agreement with reference sensors in healthy subjects.
Supports non-contact breathing rate monitoring in healthy subjects; leaves open validation in clinical populations.
The breathing rate monitoring is an important measure in medical applications and daily physical activities. The contact sensors have shown their effectiveness for breathing monitoring and have been mostly used as a standard reference, but with some disadvantages for example in burns patients with vulnerable skins. Contactless monitoring systems are then gaining attention for respiratory frequency detection. We propose a new non-contact technique to estimate the breathing rate based on the motion video magnification method by means of the Hermite transform and an Artificial Hydrocarbon Network (AHN). The chest movements are tracked by the system without the use of an ROI in the image video. The machine learning system classifies the frames as inhalation or exhalation using a Bayesian-optimized AHN. The method was compared using an optimized Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). This proposal has been tested on a Data-Set containing ten healthy subjects in four positions. The percentage error and the Bland–Altman analysis is used to compare the performance of the strategies estimating the breathing rate. Besides, the Bland–Altman analysis is used to search for the agreement of the estimation to the reference.The percentage error for the AHN method is 2.19±2.1 with and agreement with respect of the reference of ≈99%.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brieva et al. (2023) studied Healthy (n=10). Artificial Hydrocarbon Network (AHN) for non-contact breathing rate estimation vs. Optimized Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and standard reference was evaluated on Percentage error and agreement with reference. A non-contact breathing rate estimation method using an Artificial Hydrocarbon Network achieved a percentage error of 2.19±2.1 and approximately 99% agreement with the reference.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: