ArticleCommunications engineering2026
Digital methods to quantify sensor output uncertainty in real time.
Article in Communications engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Modern data-driven applications that make real-time decisions increasingly depend on advanced sensors which use pre-stored calibration data. In such applications, accurate characterization of sensor output uncertainty is important for reliable data interpretation. Here, we present a method for real-time on-device dynamic uncertainty quantification for sensor outputs which depend on pre-stored calibration data. We show how sensor calibration compensation equations (essential in advanced sensing systems) propagate uncertainties resulting from the quantization of calibration parameters to the sensor output. We use a low-cost thermal sensor as a motivating example and show these ideas are practical and possible on actual embedded sensor systems by prototyping them on two commercially-available uncertainty-tracking hardware platforms with average power dissipation 16.7 mW and 147.15 mW. These achieve 42.9× and 94.4× speedup compared to the equal-accuracy Monte Carlo computation (the status quo). We present a proof-of-usefulness edge-detection application over ten test scenes where accuracy and precision show average improvement by 4.97 and 40.25 percentage points, respectively, trading off sensitivity. Another application example examines four different calibration-data storage scenarios and compute that a 48% increase in memory yields 75% smaller uncertainty metrics over the baseline. Our method enables better decision-making in critical applications where sensor data reliability is paramount.
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.