| Title |
Nonintrusive Remote Monitoring of Sleep in Home-Based Situation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-018-0917-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ibrahim Sadek, Mounir Mohktari |
| Abstract |
Sleep deprivation can lead to loss of concentration, and risky decision-making. Nevertheless, some people may underestimate the importance of getting quality sleep. The standard health care systems might not be suitable for long-term monitoring of sleep. As an example, the polysomnography, i.e., the gold standard for assessing sleep disorders is cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. As a result, portable, nonintrusive and inexpensive systems for monitoring quality of sleep are greatly needed. This paper demonstrates a novel nonintrusive system for monitoring quality of sleep using an optical fiber embedded sensor mat. The proposed system is deployed in real-life conditions over a one-month period. Three senior female residents were enrolled for the study, where the sensor mat is placed under the bed mattress. Sleep quality is assessed based on several parameters, such as duration of sleep, sleep interruption, vital signs (heart rate and respiration). The proposed system shows an agreement with a user's survey collected before the study. Furthermore, the system is integrated within an existing ambient assisted living platform with a user-friendly interface to make it more convenient for the caregivers to follow-up the sleep parameters of the residents. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 36 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 9 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 44 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,590,133
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#819
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,544
of 331,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#24
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.