ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Performance Assessment for the Validation of Wireless Communication Engines in an Innovative Wearable Monitoring Platform.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative Wearable Platform for Synchronized Biosignals Acquisition: A Proof of Concept in a Cuff-Less Blood Pressure Monitoring Case Study.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026Article
- Ultra-Low-Power Sensor Nodes for Real-Time Synchronous and High-Accuracy Timing Wireless Data Acquisition.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In today's health-monitoring applications, there is a growing demand for wireless and wearable acquisition platforms capable of simultaneously gathering multiple bio-signals from multiple body areas. These systems require well-structured software architectures, both to keep different wireless sensing nodes synchronized each other and to flush collected data towards an external gateway. This paper presents a quantitative analysis aimed at validating both the wireless synchronization task (implemented with a custom protocol) and the data transmission task (implemented with the BLE protocol) in a prototype wearable monitoring platform. We evaluated seven frequencies for exchanging synchronization packets (10 Hz, 20 Hz, 30 Hz, 40 Hz, 50 Hz, 60 Hz, 70 Hz) as well as two different BLE configurations (with and without the implementation of a dynamic adaptation of the BLE Connection Interval parameter). Additionally, we tested BLE data transmission performance in five different use case scenarios. As a result, we achieved the optimal performance in the synchronization task (1.18 ticks as median synchronization delay with a Min-Max range of 1.60 ticks and an Interquartile range (IQR) of 0.42 ticks) when exploiting a synchronization frequency of 40 Hz and the dynamic adaptation of the Connection Interval. Moreover, BLE data transmission proved to be significantly more efficient with shorter distances between the communicating nodes, growing worse by 30.5% beyond 8 m. In summary, this study suggests the best-performing network configurations to enhance the synchronization task of the prototype platform under analysis, as well as quantitative details on the best placement of data collectors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.