ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
MQTT-Based Architecture for Real-Time Data Collection and Anomaly Detection in Smart Livestock Housing.
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.
- Embodied Intelligence for Soil Health toward Sustainable Smart Agriculture: Sensing the Soil with Flexible Geotextiles Sensors.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2026Review
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
Abstract
This study designed a message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT)-based communication framework to acquire environmental data with stable, low-latency response (soft real-time capability) and detect anomalies in smart livestock housing. We validated the performance of the proposed framework using actual sensor data. It comprises environmental sensor nodes, a Mosquitto MQTT broker, and a GRU-based anomaly detection model, with data transmission via a WiFi-based network. Comparing quality of service (QoS) levels, the QoS 1 configuration demonstrated the most stable performance, with an average latency of ~150 ms, a data collection rate ≥ 99%, and a packet loss rate ≤ 0.5%. In the sensor node expansion experiment, responsiveness (≤200 ms) persisted for 10-15 nodes, whereas latency increased to 238.7 ms for 20 or more nodes. The GRU model proved suitable for low-latency analysis, achieving 97.5% accuracy, an F1-score of 0.972, and 18.5 ms/sample inference latency. In the integrated experiment, we recorded an average end-to-end latency of 185.4 ms, a data retention rate of 98.9%, processing throughput of 5.39 samples/s, and system uptime of 99.6%. These findings demonstrate that combining QoS 1-based lightweight MQTT communication with the GRU model ensures stable system response and low-latency operation (soft real-time capability) in monitoring livestock housing environments, achieving an average end-to-end latency of 185.4 ms.
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.