ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Anomaly Detection and Segmentation in Measurement Signals on Edge Devices Using Artificial Neural Networks.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lightweight Signal Processing and Edge AI for Real-Time Anomaly Detection in IoT Sensor Networks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, three alternative solutions to the problem of detecting and cleaning anomalies in soil signal time series, involving the use of artificial neural networks deployed on in situ data measurement end devices, are proposed and investigated. These models are designed to perform calculations on MCUs, characterized by significantly limited computing capabilities and a limited supply of electrical power. Training of neural network models is carried out based on data from multiple sensors in the supporting computing cloud instance, while detection and removal of anomalies with a trained model takes place on the constrained end devices. With such a distribution of work, it is necessary to achieve a sound compromise between prediction accuracy and the computational complexity of the detection process. In this study, neural-primed heuristic (NPH), autoencoder-based (AEB), and U-Net-based (UNB) approaches were tested, which were found to vary regarding both prediction accuracy and computational complexity. Labeled data were used to train the models, transforming the detection task into an anomaly segmentation task. The obtained results reveal that the UNB approach presents certain advantages; however, it requires a significant volume of training data and has a relatively high time complexity which, in turn, translates into increased power consumption by the end device. For this reason, the other two approaches-NPH and AEB-may be worth considering as reasonable alternatives when developing in situ data cleaning solutions for IoT measurement systems.
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.