Cited by 7Fault Detection and Control SystemsControl Systems and IdentificationTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks

Hybrid Online Multi-Sensor Error Detection and Functional Redundancy for Artificial Pancreas Control Systems

Open access
Feng, Jianyuan, Hajizadeh, Iman, Samadi, Sediqeh, Sevil, Mert, Hobbs, Nicole, Brandt, Rachel, Lazaro, Caterina, Maloney, Zacharie +4 more·2018·IFAC-PapersOnLine

Abstract

Sensor errors limit the performance of a supervision and control system. Sensor accuracy can be affected by many factors such as extreme working conditions, sensor deterioration and interferences from other devices. It may be difficult to distinguish sensor errors and real dynamic changes in a system. A hybrid online multi-sensor error detection and functional redundancy (HOMSED&FR) algorithm is developed to monitor the performance of multiple sensors and reconcile the erroneous sensor signals. The algorithm relies on two methods, outlier-robust Kalman filter (ORKF) and a locally-weighted partial least squares (LW-PLS) regression model. The two methods have different way of using data, ORKF is comparing current signal samples with the signal trace indicated by previous samples and LW-PLS is comparing samples in the past window with the samples from a database and uses the samples with the most similarity to build a model to predict the current signal values. The performance of this system is illustrated with a clinical case involving artificial pancreas experiments, which include data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor, and energy expenditure (EE) and Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) information based on wearable sensors that collect data from people with type 1 diabetes. The results indicate that the proposed method can successfully detect most of the erroneous signals and substitute them with reasonably estimated values computed by the functional redundancy system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.09.289

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Continuous glucose monitoring and energy expenditure sensors may experience missing signals, stuck signals, spikes, and other noise-related issues.

    “Continuous glucose monitoring and energy expenditure sensors may experience missing signals, stuck signals, spikes, and other noise-related issues (Feng et al., 2018).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feng, J., Hajizadeh, I., Samadi, S., Sevil, M., Hobbs, N., Brandt, R., Lazaro, C., Maloney, Z., Yu, X., Littlejohn, E., Quinn, L., & Cinar, A.
Affiliations
  • Illinois Institute of Technology (US)
  • Northeastern University (CN)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
  • Feng, Jianyuan
  • Lazaro, Caterina
  • Yu, Xia
  • Littlejohn, Elizabeth
  • Quinn, Laurie
Venue
IFAC-PapersOnLine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018
Volume
51
Issue
18
Pages
138-143
ISSN
2405-8963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4248082917
Cited by
7
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
IFAC-PapersOnLine (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Target Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Keywords
sensor error detection, functional redundancy, artificial pancreas, continuous glucose monitoring, type 1 diabetes, wearable sensors, energy expenditure, skin conductance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review