Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 28;15(12):e0243939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243939

Feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultra-wideband radar in the neonatal intensive care unit

Won Hyuk Lee 1,#, Yonggu Lee 2,#, Jae Yoon Na 3,#, Seung Hyun Kim 3, Hyun Ju Lee 3, Young-Hyo Lim 2, Seok Hyun Cho 4, Sung Ho Cho 1,*, Hyun-Kyung Park 3,*
Editor: Georg M Schmölzer5
PMCID: PMC7769476  PMID: 33370375

Abstract

Background

Current cardiorespiratory monitoring equipment can cause injuries and infections in neonates with fragile skin. Impulse-radio ultra-wideband (IR-UWB) radar was recently demonstrated to be an effective contactless vital sign monitor in adults. The purpose of this study was to assess heart rates (HRs) and respiratory rates (RRs) in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) using IR-UWB radar and to evaluate its accuracy and reliability compared to conventional electrocardiography (ECG)/impedance pneumography (IPG).

Methods

The HR and RR were recorded in 34 neonates between 3 and 72 days of age during minimal movement (51 measurements in total) using IR-UWB radar (HRRd, RRRd) and ECG/IPG (HRECG, RRIPG) simultaneously. The radar signals were processed in real time using algorithms for neonates. Radar and ECG/IPG measurements were compared using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) and Bland-Altman plots.

Results

From the 34 neonates, 12,530 HR samples and 3,504 RR samples were measured. Both the HR and RR measured using the two methods were highly concordant when the neonates had minimal movements (CCC = 0.95 between the RRRd and RRIPG, CCC = 0.97 between the HRRd and HRECG). In the Bland-Altman plot, the mean biases were 0.17 breaths/min (95% limit of agreement [LOA] -7.0–7.3) between the RRRd and RRIPG and -0.23 bpm (95% LOA -5.3–4.8) between the HRRd and HRECG. Moreover, the agreement for the HR and RR measurements between the two modalities was consistently high regardless of neonate weight.

Conclusions

A cardiorespiratory monitor using IR-UWB radar may provide accurate non-contact HR and RR estimates without wires and electrodes for neonates in the NICU.

Introduction

The most widely used cardiorespiratory monitoring technologies in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are pulse oximetry based on photoplethysmography, electrocardiography (ECG) and impedance pneumography (IPG) based on electrical potential differences obtained through adhesive electrodes on the skin. However, IPG suffers from inaccuracy and cardiac interference in neonates with rapid respiratory rates (RRs) and limited lung aeration because it is based on breath-dependent thoracic variations in transthoracic impedance [13]. Moreover, these instruments have several additional disadvantages resulting from the use of adhesive sensors. Repetitive replacement of electrodes and the twining wires around the arm or leg cause skin damage, infections due to skin layer breakdown, permanent scars, and circulatory disturbances, particularly in premature infants with fragile skin. There may even be a risk of hypothermia during procedures, which could cause circulatory disturbances, particularly in premature infants.

In recent years, significant attention has been paid to non-contact novel methods for vital sign assessment in neonates [1, 2, 49]. However, these studies either were explorative with small sample sizes or reported on techniques used to monitor only RR or HR (heart rate) [3, 1013]. Trials for contactless cardiorespiratory simultaneous measurement have not been reported in the NICU population. Results obtained from infants and adults are limited and can only influence clinical practices for neonates and preterm infants against a reference gold standard in terms of feasibility, accuracy, and standardization.

Impulse radio ultra-wideband radar (IR-UWB radar) is a high-precision electromagnetic sensor that recognizes the motion of an object at a distance. IR-UWB radar has various advantages in medical applications, such as its contactless/wireless use, license-free use, easy application, low cost, high data-processing rate, low exposure risk for the human body, and daily convenient use in and out of the hospital [1417]. Accurately monitoring neonatal HR is important for clinicians to assess the well-being of neonates in the NICU. Recently, we presented an RR monitoring algorithm for IR-UWB radar to extract the breathing signal and demonstrated the feasibility and accuracy of radar as an RR monitor for neonates [18]. However, accurate HR estimation using radar is still challenging because neonate HR often reaches more than twice the adult HR. Moreover, the signal intensity from the neonate’s heart is weaker, and the harmonics from the neonate’s rapid breathing are hindered. To improve the quality of HR assessment in neonates using our radar technology, we redesigned the data-processing algorithms for the radar signals used in adults [1921] and finally achieved sufficient accuracy for HR measurements using the radar in neonates.

The aim of this study is to investigate the performance of simultaneous non-contact measurements for both HR and RR using our IR-UWB radar technology compared to that of conventional ECG/IPG monitors in the NICU.

Materials and methods

Subjects

From July 2018 to February 2019, we prospectively enrolled 34 neonates (16 preterm and 18 term babies) from the NICU in Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. A total of 51 measurements were obtained from those 34 neonates and were used to compare the accuracy of the ECG/IPG and the IR-UWB radar. Among the 34 neonates, 33 neonates breathed spontaneously without supplemental oxygen and invasive/non-invasive respiratory assistance, while one preterm neonate received synchronized intermittent mechanical ventilation therapy during measurement. Neonates with congenital anomalies or unstable conditions, including hypotension, sustained tachypnea (RR > 60 breaths/min) and fever (>38°C), were excluded from the study because of the need for frequent medical care and intervention (Fig 1). The study protocol adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki, approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hanyang University Medical Centre (No. 2017-09-046-002) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03622996). Written informed consent was obtained from the parents.

Fig 1. CONSORT flow diagram.

Fig 1

Experimental setup

All experiments were conducted at the bedside in the NICU. The IR-UWB radar and a conventional vital sign monitor using ECG/IPG were measured simultaneously. The radar chip was covered with a plastic cap and was placed at the end of a flexible arm on a tripod, which was approximately 1 metre in height from the floor, pointing at the chest of each neonate. The neonates were laid inside an open-air crib or incubator in a supine position, and their torsos were covered with a blanket. The radar was placed at a distance of 35 cm and was orthogonal to the chest (Fig 2). The cradles or incubators were fixed from motion during the experiment. The measurement of radar was obtained when the neonates were left alone. Clinical workflow always took priority over the measurement, and whenever a medical procedure was required, the measurement was temporarily suspended. The data obtained from the radar were processed and stored in a laptop computer placed in the vicinity.

Fig 2. Experimental set-up for simultaneous IR-UWB radar and ECG/IPG recording.

Fig 2

The radar sensor was covered with a cap (width × depth × height, 5.8 × 3.4 × 1.8 cm, weight, 150 g; inside the actual sensor chip: 2.2 × 1.2 × 0.6 cm, 18 g), placed on an arm attached to the cradle and pointed at the chest of the neonate at a perpendicular angle. The sampling rate of the radar measurement was 60 Hz. The BSM-6501K monitor (Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) is used as the reference monitor for both HR and RR. The neonate’s clothes remain on during measurement.

Conventional monitor (ECG/IPG) measurement

A BSM-6501K patient monitor (Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) was used as a reference monitor. The three transcutaneous electrodes were attached at the standard positions, and a pulse oximetry sensor was placed on the sole of the neonates. HR measured using ECG (HRECG) was calculated with the last 12 consecutive heartbeat intervals and the RR measured using IPG (RRIPG) was calculated with the last 8 respiration intervals. The measurements were recorded on an external storage device every second and extracted using viewer software (BSM Viewer, Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan). The values of HRECG were averaged over every 10 seconds to compare with the radar measurements.

Radar data collection and processing

A commercially available IR-UWB radar device, XK200 (Xandar Kardian, Delaware, USA), was used to send and collect radar signals to and from the chest. MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA), a commercially available software package, was used to acquire, process and store the data from the radar sensor. The IR-UWB radar operates within an FCC mask (US Federal Communications Commission Mask Regulation) [20, 2224], and its safety as low-power wireless equipment was certified by the National Radio Research Agency, Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Korea (certification no. MSIP-CRM-Top-TSR-M200W). The certification can be found on the following website (https://www.xkcorp.com/certifications). Signals obtained from the radar were transferred to a computer for processing and frequency analysis (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Algorithm block diagram.

Fig 3

HR and RR detection algorithm for neonates redesigned from the algorithm used for adults. Because the raw signals received from the radar contained noise components, signal processing algorithms were applied to the raw signal. After the breathing waveform and its harmonics were removed using a band-pass filter, the HR frequency components were estimated using fast Fourier transform.

Because the measurements using the radar as well as those using ECG/IPG could significantly be interfered by large movements on both limbs and the torso, we quantified spontaneous or medical care-related body movements of neonates with the power differences in radar measurements to identify certain notable body movements using radar. The notable body movements included being in nursing care, repetitive myoclonus, hiccupping, flopping and crying; the other movements were considered minimal movements. Neonates were recorded using a video camera during the entire radar measurements, and the movements in the video footages were then compared with the quantified movements in the radar to produce a cut-off criterion for those notable movements [25] (S1 Data).

Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) was used to convert frequency domains in the extracted radar signals into the RRRd (RR measured using the IR-UWB radar) and HRRd (HR measured using the IR-UWB radar). RRRd was derived from the average of the frequencies with the largest magnitude within the RR range over 10 seconds. Unlike RRRd, the frequency component of HRRd can be identified with its lower magnitude and higher range compared with those of the RRRd component [20, 24]. Because the frequency components of HRRd were similar to the harmonic frequency components of RRRd in both magnitude and range, HRRd was obtained through a harmonic cancellation algorithm to suppress breath harmonics within the HRRd frequency domains (S1 Fig).

The radar tries to observe the vital sign signal through the movement near the subject’s abdomen, but the movement hinders acquisition of these vital signals. Therefore, the algorithm tries to remove as much movement/artifact components as possible from the radar signals received. However, the RR and HR extracted during movement are not reliable, similar to data obtained from existing patient monitors.

Modification of radar measurements for neonates

Because of physiologic and anthropometric differences between neonates and adults, we modified some measurement settings that we had introduced in the previous studies on adults [19, 20] as follows.

  1. Lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) circumstance: Fixing the observation points of IR-UWB radar to one body part is difficult because neonates and premature babies are much smaller than adults. The observation point is a specific distance point that determines the best vital sign observed on radar to extract. The SNR will be reduced because all vibrations or small movements generated by the treatment will be reflected in the radar signals. Additionally, the HR movements of infants are smaller than those of adults because infants have small bodies, which is why we want to increase the Frames per second (FPS) of the radar to increase the quality of the signal. The 20 FPS was used to extract the vital signs of adults, but 60 FPS was applied for neonates and premature infants.

  2. Suitable location for the best detection in the neonates: The capability to detect the motion of the abdomen by breathing does not vary significantly depending on the direction of the radar installation. However, to measure the HR, the signals received by the radar must adequately reflect the movement of the heart, which requires the radar to be positioned vertically from the lying body and not from the head or legs of the infant.

  3. Selection of different frequency spectrum ranges: The HR of neonates and premature babies is 90 to 200 beats per minute [26, 27], which is more than twice the average HR of adults. To measure the HRs of neonates and premature babies, a band-pass filter in different bands compared to adults should be designed. A band-pass filter with cut-off frequencies of 10 (breaths/min) and 90 (breaths/min) was used to extract breath, and a band-pass filter with cut-off frequencies of 90 (bpm) and 210 (bpm) was used to extract the HR.

  4. Integration of body movement: Neonates and premature babies in the NICU sustain spontaneous movements; thus, the reliability of the RR and HR can be reviewed by measuring the degree of movement based on the distance of the signals received by the radar.

  5. Extraction of vital sign signals without disturbance from small movements of the baby: Motion such as lifting the hands or legs can disturb the radar signals and confuse the observation points for retrieving heartbeats. Accordingly, the observation point was fixed to the chest area and not to the extremities to prevent interference from motion.

Statistical analysis

The data are presented as the median with interquartile ranges or the mean with standard deviation (SD). Because the accuracies of both the IR-UWB radar and the conventional monitors were highly influenced by large movements on the limbs and torso, analyses were conducted separately when there were notable movements in the neonates. The agreements between the radar and ECG measurements were evaluated using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots with 2.5% and 97.5% limits of agreement (LOA). The significances of biases between the two methods were evaluated using a single-sample t-test.

The neonates were divided into 3 groups according to the body weight on the day of radar recording as follow: ≤2 kg for BW1 group; 2< weight ≤3 kg for BW2 group; >3 kg for BW3 group). The bias levels between the IR-UWB radar and the conventional monitors were compared among the 3 groups using a one-way ANOVA. Measurements of HR and RR were also categorized into 3 levels according to the HR and RR from the conventional monitors as follow (HR1/RR1: HR or RR <5%; HR2/RR2: HR or RR of 5%~95%; HR3/RR3: HR or RR >95% in the distribution) to evaluate the systematic biases residing in the HR and RR measurement data and the agreement levels between the two methods in the extremely low or high measurement levels.

All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software R version 3.4.0 and its packages epiR and MethComp. A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the subjects are summarized in Table 1. The median gestational and postnatal ages were 38.6 weeks and 14.5 days, respectively. The median birth weight and body weight were 3,085 g and 3,020 g. The median RR and HR were 38.1 (IQR 32.0–45.2) breaths/min and 134.0 (IQR 127.3–140.0) bpm, respectively. The average total recording time was 44 ± (20.3) min, and the average valid recording time during minimal movement for the final analysis was 22 ± (10.1) min (S1 Table).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the subjects.

Demographics N = 34
Gestational age, weeks 38.6 (32.4–39.4)
    Preterm infants, 10/34 (29.4%) 31.1 (30.0–32.4)
    Term infants, 24/34 (70.6%) 39.1 (38.4–39.8)
Birth weight, g 3,085 (1,690–3,370)
Male 18 (52.9%)
Singleton 25 (73.5%)
Small for gestational age (SGA) infant 4 (11.8%)
Birth by caesarean section 20 (58.8%)
Apgar 1 min 6 (4–8)
Apgar 5 min 8 (7–9)
Duration of hospitalization, days 10 (7–20)
Breast milk feeding during hospital stay 19 (55.9%)
Age at measurement, days 14.5 (7–28)
Body weight at measurement, g 3,020 (2,110–3,550)
    BW1, 7/34 (20.6%) 1,880 (1,585–1,890)
    BW2, 9/34 (26.5%) 2,430 (2,330–2,760)
    BW3, 18/34 (52.9%) 3,525 (3,200–3,800)
Respiratory rate, breaths/min 38.1 (32.0–45.2)
    BW1 48.5 (34–63.4)
    BW2 36.0 (31.2–40.9)
    BW3 38.0 (31.7–44.2)
Heart rate, bpm 134.0 (127.3–140.0)
    BW1 146.0 (135.3–149.0)
    BW2 128.0 (122.0–133.3)
    BW3 134.0 (128.6–139.0)

Data are presented as N (%) or the median (interquartile range). BW1 group, body weight on recording ≤ 2 kg; BW2, 2 < weight ≤3 kg; BW3, weight > 3 kg.

A representative case regarding the comparison of HR and RR between the radar and the conventional measurements is depicted in Fig 4. In the tachograms, HRRd and RRRd appeared to be highly correlated with HRECG and RRIPG, respectively, and minor discrepancies developed when minimal movements of neonates were present. The measurements using radar showed large discrepancies from those using the conventional methods during the notable movements (S2 Fig).

Fig 4. Representative examples of the HR and RR of a premature infant.

Fig 4

Representative examples of the HR and RR obtained from a 7-day-old premature infant weighing 3,550 g (gestational age 31+2 weeks, birth weight 3,400 g) during sleeping. The blue and red lines represent measurements from the radar (RRRd, HRRd) and ECG/IPG (RRIPG, HRECG) over 15 minutes, respectively. The degree of movement is presented with arbitrary units based on the distance from the IR-UWB radar (the lowest panel). The measurements from the two methods agreed well with each other.

The comparisons between RRRd and RRIPG during minimal movements are summarized in Fig 5A–5C. The RRRd and RRIPG were highly correlated with each other, and the concordance was excellent (CCC 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.947–0.954). The Bland-Altman plot shows that the mean bias was significant, whereas it was clinically negligible (0.17 breaths/min; 95% CI, 0.05–0.29; p<0.001). The width of the 95% LOA was less than 20% (13.7 breaths/min) of the average RRs at the maximum and gradually decreased with increasing average RRs. The agreement levels were similar among the three BW groups (BW1 group 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.934–0.952 vs. BW2 group 0.96; 95% CI, 0.952–0.964 vs. BW3 group 0.94; 95% CI, 0.936–0.946). The mean biases were smallest in the BW3 group, but not significantly different among the groups (Fig 6, S3 Fig, and S1 Table).

Fig 5. Agreement for the RR and HR between IR-UWB radar and conventional ECG/IPG.

Fig 5

The RRRd was highly correlated with the RRIPG (A). BA plot showing that the mean bias between the RRRd and RRIPG was only 0.17 breaths/minute, which is negligible in clinical practice (B). The width of the 95% LOA of the percent difference between the RRRd and RRIPG was less than 16.8% of the average RRs at the maximum width and gradually decreased with increasing average RRs (C). The HRRd was also highly correlated with the HRECG (D). BA plot showing that the mean bias between the HRRd and HRECG was only -0.23 beats/minute, and the width of the 95% LOA was approximately 7.5% of the median average HR (E). The width of the 95% LOA of the percent difference between the HRRd and HRECG was less than 2.8% of the average HR at the maximum width and gradually decreased with increasing average HRs (F). BW1, body weight ≤2 kg; BW2, 2< body weight ≤3 kg; BW3, body weight >3 kg.

Fig 6. Agreement of RR and HR between IR-UWB radar and ECG/IPG according to BW, HR and RR.

Fig 6

The means biases (boxes), 95% LOAs (black whiskers) and 95% CI of the mean biases (blue whiskers) were plotted according to BW, HR and RR. A) Although the biases between the two methods are significant for RR in the BW2 group (p<0.001) and for HR in the BW1 (p<0.001) and BW3 (p<0.001) groups in one-sample t-tests, the absolute biases are less than 1 in both HR and RR in all groups. Biases in HR are smallest in the BW2 group while biases in RR are not different among the BW groups. B) Biases are smallest in the HR2 category and RR2 category. The mean biases are significant in all categories. The radar measurements of HR and RR was higher in the low HR and RR range and lower in the high HR and RR range than the conventional measurements.

The BW1 group indicates <2 kg, BW2 group 2~3 kg and BW3 group >3 kg. The HR1 (or RR1) indicates the measurements with HR (or RR) < lower 5% and the HR3 (or RR3) indicates the measurements with HR (or RR) ≥ upper 5%. Comparisons between HRRd and HRECG during the minimal movement are summarized in Fig 5D–5F. Similar to the case of RR, HRRd and HRECG were highly correlated with each other, and the concordance level was excellent (CCC 0.97; 95% CI, 0.966–0.968). The Bland-Altman plot shows a very small mean bias (0.23 bpm; 95% CI, -0.18–-0.27; p<0.001), though significantly different from zero. The width of the 95% LOA was less than 10% (10.0 bpm) of the average HR at the maximum width. The agreement levels were similar among the BW groups (CCC for BW1 group 0.96 [95% CI 0.96–0.97] vs. CCC for BW2 group 0.94 [95% CI 0.94–0.94] vs. CCC for BW3 0.96 [95% CI 0.96–0.96]). The mean bias of HR measurements was smallest in the BW2 group, while there were no differences in the mean biases of RRs among the 3 body weight groups. The absolute values of the mean biases were <1 in both RR and HR in all 3 groups (Fig 6A, S4 Fig, and S1 Table). The biases were smallest in the HR2 category and RR2 category, whereas the mean biases were significant in all categories in both HR and RR. The radar measured HR and RR more frequently in the low HR and RR and less frequently in the high HR and RR, compared with the conventional monitors (Fig 6B, S4 Fig, and S1 Table). The proportion of the time when the discrepancy during the minimal movements was ≤5 bpm was 95.4% in all neonates and was similar among the 3 BW groups (S1 Table).

Discussion

For the first time, our innovative wireless technology, IR-UWB radar, successfully detected HR and RR with good signal quality and provided a high degree of accuracy comparable to that of the current standard monitoring technique used in neonates. Although extracting rapid heartbeats with a tiny magnitude of the chest wall of neonates is difficult, we successfully isolated HR from the respiration harmonics using a new algorithm for neonates [19, 20].

The patches and wires of conventional vital monitoring equipment can not only cause misreading of X-ray films but are also a major obstacle to parent-child bonding [2, 9]. Anand and Scalzo [28] suggested that pain, stress and maternal separation of NICU patients have a negative impact on cognitive development [29]. In addition, a study by Chen et al. [30] indicated that stressful conditions, such as repetitive application and removal of patches, adversely affect an infant’s well-being and developmental outcomes [31], and the resulting scars may be disfiguring or disabling in 10% of preterm infants [13]. Considering the above findings, a contactless vital sign monitoring technique would be highly desirable.

Accurately monitoring HR in the NICU is very important to clinicians because recurrent episodes of bradycardia may be warning signs of various serious conditions, such as infection or sepsis, respiratory distress, critical arrhythmia, and heart failure in neonates. In particular, as the survival rates of preterm infants increase, alternative non-contact monitoring methods are becoming important. There are only a few explorative pilot studies for monitoring vital signs in the NICU using camera photoplethysmography, laser Doppler vibrometry, piezoelectric sensors, digital stethoscopes, and transcutaneous electromyography, among other technologies [1, 2, 6, 7, 32], but most of the published literature has described small-scale, pilot studies in the developmental phase.

The feasibility and accuracy of the IR-UWB radar have thus far not been studied in the NICU. This study showed that the radar-derived RRRd and HRRd correlated perfectly with the RRIPG and HRECG signals. Our non-contact radar has many advantages in biomedical applications because it is electrodeless, safe, inexpensive, convenient to use, portable, cross-linkable with IoT, and highly compatible with other tubes or catheters attached to neonates [15, 20, 2224]. Most non-contact sensors are generally susceptible to a baby’s motions. In contrast, our IR-UWB radar sensor could integrate movement detection with vital monitoring to reduce false alarms and avoid invalid measurements by automatically cancelling motion-contaminated data. In addition, unlike signals from other non-contact sensors, signals from the radar are not affected by any status of skin, phototherapy, and ambient illumination conditions in the NICU.

Recently, we successfully extracted respiratory signals in neonates [18], and the accuracy of our technology was proven by comparing it with the reference gold standard using a signal filtering algorithm as demonstrated in our preliminary study [20, 33]. However, the accurate calculation of HR for neonates was very challenging and more difficult than respiration detection with our conventional algorithm, mainly because focusing on the neonate’s small heart is difficult for the IR-UWB radar, and the HR of the neonate is more than double that of the adult. In addition, the radar suffered from noisy signals relating to the environment and nursing care by the medical staff. Finally, we overcame these obstacles through a modified algorithm suitable for a small human body, and accurate heartbeat information was extracted through a redesigned radar algorithm for neonates. We compared IR-UWB to ECG/IPG, as this is currently the most widely used method for cardiorespiratory monitoring in the NICU. The analysis of HR measurement as well as RR revealed a compatible detection rate and good correlation and agreement between the two methods during minimal movements (Figs 2 and 3).

The overall results suggest that the IR-UWB technique is feasible for the general NICU population. The clinical applicability of the radar could be an attractive option for standard neonatal monitoring. Furthermore, this promising study can be the first and essential step to measure vital signs without contact in neonates and may have important clinical implications as a home monitoring solution for high-risk infants and as a screening tool for serious diseases [5, 20, 3436].

Limitations

Vital monitoring through the IR-UWB radar has certain limitations. First, oxygen saturation monitoring is not possible in comparison with an established gold standard. Second, all measurements are obtained in a supine position with a fixed angle, and the device is far from the chest. Third, if subjects have severe bradycardia, with the HR falling to a level similar to the RR, accurate calculation is difficult because the radar measurements overlap. Fourth, recordings with notable body movements are still a challenge.

Conclusions

This study supports the wireless and electrodeless IR-UWB sensor as an applicable method to collect both HR and RR data for the first time in the NICU. Despite the obvious limitations, expectations for future vital sign monitoring using IR-UWB radar are amplified because of the successful non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring in neonates. Compared to reference monitoring data, which are widely used in clinical practice, the radar data show similar results. Better hardware and improved algorithms to compensate for neonates’ motion are required to increase the robustness of the IR-UWB radar.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

(DOC)

S1 Data. To quantify the amount of movement Ei, the results of the squared value of each component of the difference between the nth received radar signal and the n−1 received radar signal over a given threshold T[k] are added together.

This approach is suitable for quantifying and assessing an infant's movements because the more the infant moves, the greater the continuous change in signals received from the radar. This method is also used to measure sedentary movement without any change in position [25].

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. The spectrum of the radar signals in the frequency domain and the heartbeat waveforms obtained from the radar in real time.

(A) The waveform with the highest magnitude represents the RR frequency location in the spectrum. To extract the HR components, RR harmonic components were removed using the notch filter. Because the magnitudes of RR harmonic components decrease exponentially, the magnitude of the 3rd harmonic component was negligible compared to that of the HR frequency component. (B) Heartbeat waveforms from IR-UWB radar and ECG. The signal waveforms from heartbeats correspond well with the R wave of ECG waveforms.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Representative examples of the HR and RR with notable movement.

The blue and red lines represent measurements from the radar (RRRd, HRRd) and ECG/IPG (RRIPG, HRECG) over 2.5 minutes, respectively. The degree of movement is presented with arbitrary units based on the distance from the IR-UWB radar (the lowest panel). The HR and RR values of the two sensors differ significantly when notable movement occurs.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. The correlation and accuracy between the RRRd derived from the IR-UWB radar and the RRIPG from IPG when neonates were stable in the (A) BW1 group, (B) BW2 group, and (C) BW3 group.

The RRRd shows strong agreement with the RRIPG regardless of body weight. Pearson’s correlation coefficient is shown in the left panel of each graph, and the mean difference and the lower and upper limits of agreement by Bland-Altman plots are indicated by the two blue (±1.96 SD) or red (±3 SD) dotted lines in the right panel of each graph.

(DOCX)

S4 Fig. The correlation and accuracy between the HRRd derived from the IR-UWB radar and the HRECG from ECG when neonates were stable in the (A) BW1 group, (B) BW2 group, and (C) BW3 group.

The HRRd also agreed well with the HRECG regardless of body weight. Pearson’s correlation coefficient is shown in the left panel of each graph, and the mean difference and the lower and upper limits of agreement by Bland-Altman plota are indicated by the two blue (±1.96 SD) or red (±3 SD) dotted lines in the right panel of each graph.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Agreement between IR-UWB Radar and ECG/IPG for HR and RR measurements when the neonates were stable: Signal matching, correlations, and differences according to the BW groups.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Clinical trial protocol original language.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Clinical trial protocol translation.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the Korea Special Therapeutic Education Center (Chairman Il-Kewon Kim) of Anyang, Korea, and the Bio and Medical Technology Development Program (Next Generation Biotechnology) through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (NRF-2017M3A9E2064735).

References

  • 1.Kevat AC, Bullen DV, Davis PG, Kamlin CO. A systematic review of novel technology for monitoring infant and newborn heart rate. Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway: 1992). 2017;106(5):710–20. 10.1111/apa.13786 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Aarts LA, Jeanne V, Cleary JP, Lieber C, Nelson JS, Bambang Oetomo S, et al. Non-contact heart rate monitoring utilizing camera photoplethysmography in the neonatal intensive care unit—a pilot study. Early human development. 2013;89(12):943–8. 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2013.09.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kohn S, Waisman D, Pesin J, Faingersh A, Klotzman I, Levy C, et al. Monitoring the respiratory rate by miniature motion sensors in premature infants: A comparative study. J Perinatol. 2016;36(2):116–20. 10.1038/jp.2015.173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Van Gastel M, Balmaekers B, Bambang Oetomo S, Verkruysse W, editors. Near-continuous non-contact cardiac pulse monitoring in a neonatal intensive care unit in near darkness Optical diagnostics and sensing XVIII: Toward point-of-care diagnostics; San Francisco, CA: International Society for Optics and Photonics; 2018. pp. 1050114 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Klaessens JH, Van den Born M, Van der Veen A, Sikkens-Van de Kraats J, Van den Dungen FA, Verdaasdonk RM, editors. Development of a baby friendly non-contact method for measuring vital signs: First results of clinical measurements in an open incubator at a neonatal intensive care unit Advanced biomedical and clinical diagnostic systems XII; San Francisco, CA: International Society for Optics and Photonics; 2014. pp. 89351P [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sato S, Ishida-Nakajima W, Ishida A, Kawamura M, Miura S, Ono K, et al. Assessment of a new piezoelectric transducer sensor for noninvasive cardiorespiratory monitoring of newborn infants in the NICU. Neonatology. 2010;98(2):179–90. 10.1159/000283994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nukaya S, Sugie M, Kurihara Y, Hiroyasu T, Watanabe K, Tanaka H. A noninvasive heartbeat, respiration, and body movement monitoring system for neonates. Artif Life Robot. 2014;19(4):414–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chung HU, Kim BH, Lee JY, Lee JY, Xie ZQ, Ibler EM, et al. Binodal, wireless epidermal electronic systems with in-sensor analytics for neonatal intensive care. Science. 2019;363(6430):eaau0780 10.1126/science.aau0780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bonner O, Beardsall K, Crilly N, Lasenby JJBi. ‘There were more wires than him’: the potential for wireless patient monitoring in neonatal intensive care. 2017;3(1):12–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zito D, Pepe D, Mincica M, Zito F, Tognetti A, Lanata A, et al. SoC CMOS UWB pulse radar sensor for contactless respiratory rate monitoring. IEEE transactions on biomedical circuits and systems. 2011;5(6):503–10. 10.1109/TBCAS.2011.2176937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schleicher B, Nasr I, Trasser A, Schumacher H. IR-UWB radar demonstrator for ultra-fine movement detection and vital-sign monitoring. IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech. 2013;61(5):2076–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gibson K, Al-Naji A, Fleet JA, Steen M, Chahl J, Huynh J, et al. Noncontact heart and respiratory rate monitoring of preterm infants based on a computer vision system: Protocol for a method comparison study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2019;8(8):e13400 10.2196/13400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Atallah L, Serteyn A, Meftah M, Schellekens M, Vullings R, Bergmans JWM, et al. Unobtrusive ECG monitoring in the NICU using a capacitive sensing array. Physiol Meas. 2014;35(5):895–913. 10.1088/0967-3334/35/5/895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yu BG, Oh JH, Kim Y, Kim TW. Accurate measurement of chest compression depth using impulse-radio ultra-wideband sensor on a mattress. PLoS one. 2017;12(8):e0183971 10.1371/journal.pone.0183971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cho HS, Park YJ. Detection of heart rate through a wall using UWB impulse radar. J Healthc Eng. 2018;2018:4832605 10.1155/2018/4832605 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schires E, Georgiou P, Lande TS. Vital sign monitoring through the back using an UWB impulse radar with body coupled antennas. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst. 2018;12(2):292–302. 10.1109/TBCAS.2018.2799322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lazaro A, Girbau D, Villarino R. Techniques for clutter suppression in the presence of body movements during the detection of respiratory activity through UWB radars. Sensors (Basel). 2014;14(2):2595–2618. 10.3390/s140202595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kim JD, Lee WH, Lee Y, Lee HJ, Cha T, Kim SH, et al. Non-contact respiration monitoring using impulse radio ultrawideband radar in neonates. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6(6):190149 10.1098/rsos.190149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lee Y, Park JY, Choi YW, Park HK, Cho SH, Cho SH, et al. A novel non-contact heart rate monitor using impulse-radio ultra-wideband (IR-UWB) radar technology. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):13053 10.1038/s41598-018-31411-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Khan F, Cho SH. A detailed algorithm for vital sign monitoring of a stationary/non-stationary human through IR-UWB radar. Sensors (Basel). 2017;17(2):E290 10.3390/s17020290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Park JY, Lee Y, Choi YW, Heo R, Park HK, Cho SH, et al. Preclinical evaluation of a noncontact simultaneous monitoring method for respiration and carotid pulsation using impulse-radio ultra-wideband radar. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):11892 10.1038/s41598-019-48386-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Li B, Zhou Z, Zou W, Li D, Zhao C. Optimal waveforms design for ultra-wideband impulse radio sensors. Sensors (Basel). 2010;10(12):11038–11063. 10.3390/s101211038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Choliz J, Hernandez A, Valdovinos A. A framework for UWB-based communication and location tracking systems for wireless sensor networks. Sensors (Basel). 2011;11(9):9045–9068. 10.3390/s110909045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lazaro A, Girbau D, Villarino R. Analysis of vital signs monitoring using an IR-UWB radar. Prog Electromagn Res. 2010;100:265–284. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yim D, Lee WH, Kim JI, Kim K, Ahn DH, Lim YH, et al. Quantified activity measurement for medical use in movement disorders through IR-UWB radar sensor. Sensors. 2019;19(3):688 10.3390/s19030688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Von Steinburg SP, Boulesteix AL, Lederer C, Grunow S, Schiermeier S, Hatzmann W, et al. What is the “Normal” fetal heart rate? PeerJ. 2013;1:e82 10.7717/peerj.82 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fleming S, Thompson M, Stevens R, Heneghan C, Plüddemann A, Maconochie I, et al. Normal ranges of heart rate and respiratory rate in children from birth to 18 years of age: A systematic review of observational studies. Lancet. 2011;377(9770):1011–1018. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62226-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Anand KJ, Scalzo FM. Can adverse neonatal experiences alter brain development and subsequent behavior? Biol Neonate. 2000;77(2):69–82. 10.1159/000014197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Eeles AL, Walsh JM, Olsen JE, Cuzzilla R, Thompson DK, Anderson PJ, et al. Continuum of neurobehaviour and its associations with brain MRI in infants born preterm. BMJ Paediatr open. 2017;1(1):e000136 10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chen W, Bouwstra S, Bambang Oetomo S, Feijs L. Intelligent design for neonatal monitoring with wearable sensors In: Somerset VS, editor. Intelligent and biosensors. Croatia, Balkans: IntechOpen; 2010. p. 386–410. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Als H, Gilkerson L, Duffy FH, McAnulty GB, Buehler DM, Vandenberg K, et al. A three-center, randomized, controlled trial of individualized developmental care for very low birth weight preterm infants: Medical, neurodevelopmental, parenting, and caregiving effects. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2003;24(6):399–408. 10.1097/00004703-200312000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Villarroel M, Guazzi A, Jorge J, Davis S, Watkinson P, Green G, et al. Continuous non-contact vital sign monitoring in neonatal intensive care unit. Healthc Technol Lett. 2014;1(3):87–91. 10.1049/htl.2014.0077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Leem SK, Khan F, Cho SH. Vital sign monitoring and mobile phone usage detection using IR-UWB radar for intended use in car crash prevention. Sensors (Basel). 2017;17(6):E1240 10.3390/s17061240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhao F, Li M, Jiang Z, Tsien JZ, Lu Z. Camera-based, non-contact, vital-signs monitoring technology may provide a way for the early prevention of SIDS in infants. Front Neurol. 2016;7:236 10.3389/fneur.2016.00236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ramanathan R, Corwin MJ, Hunt CE, Lister G, Tinsley LR, Baird T, et al. Cardiorespiratory events recorded on home monitors: Comparison of healthy infants with those at increased risk for SIDS. JAMA. 2001;285(17):2199–2207. 10.1001/jama.285.17.2199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Marchionni P, Scalise L, Antognoli L, Nobile S, Carnielli V, editors. Non-contact procedure to measure heart and lung activities in preterm pediatric patients with skin disorders Laser florence 2017: Advances in laser medicine; 2018; Florence, Italy: International Society for Optics and Photonics. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Georg M Schmölzer

20 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-21820

Feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultra-wideband radar in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hyun-Kyung Park,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by September 30 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study investigates the feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultra-wideband radar in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit by comparing the measures with conventional electrocardiography (ECG)/impedance pneumography (IPG). I have several comments and questions for Statistical analysis.

Line 211, the abbreviation of SD must be defined the first time it is used.

Please make it clear what is “the bias between the radar and the conventional measurements”. Does such “bias” equal to the difference between the radar and the conventional measurements?

I do not see any reports in this manuscript about intra-individual variances and inter-individual variances. How would you incorporate repeated measures in one-way ANOVA?

According to data shown in S1 table, in Figure 5, the titles of the two boxes should be exchanged.

In figure 5, what do those vertical bars represent? One sample t-tests is not necessary because small difference from zero will get significant result when the sample size is large. To reflect the mean bias, 95% CI may be used.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 28;15(12):e0243939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243939.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Aug 2020

Reviewer #1: This study investigates the feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultra-wideband radar in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit by comparing the measures with conventional electrocardiography (ECG)/impedance pneumography (IPG). I have several comments and questions for Statistical analysis.

1. Line 211, the abbreviation of SD must be defined the first time it is used.

: Thanks for your comment. We have defined the term of SD in Line 204 at first instead.

2. Please make it clear what is “the bias between the radar and the conventional measurements”. Does such “bias” equal to the difference between the radar and the conventional measurements?

: Thanks for your detailed comment. We want to talk about the difference between the radar and the conventional measurement, so we have changed “bias” to “differences” as your comment in Line 211.

3. I do not see any reports in this manuscript about intra-individual variances and inter-individual variances. How would you incorporate repeated measures in one-way ANOVA?

: Thank you for your deep interest in statistically analysis. We used CCC to check the agreement of the measurements of the IR-UWB radar sensor and conventional measurements. Various statistical methods were considered to analyze the agreement between both methods, but since one-way ANOVA was not used, the content has been removed from the manuscript.

4. According to data shown in S1 table, in Figure 5, the titles of the two boxes should be exchanged.

: Thank you for your comments. As your comment, it is correct that the two boxes in Figure 5 have been exchanged. Including the comment below, we would revise Figure 5 accordingly.

5. In figure 5, what do those vertical bars represent? One sample t-tests is not necessary because small difference from zero will get significant result when the sample size is large. To reflect the mean bias, 95% CI may be used.

: Thank you for your comments. Figure 5 shows the t-test results for the difference between heart rate and respiratory rate of the IR-UWB radar sensor and the conventional measurements. Vertical bar means CI, and the figure is incorrect, so we corrected the figure rightly.

During the overall review of the manuscript submitted, there was a mistake in the radar device name used for data collection. We changed the product name to XK200 (Xandar Kardian, Delaware, USA) in Line 126 and Figure 1. Also, the website address related to FCC certification has expired, so we have attached a new address and revised it in Line 133. We’re sorry for such a mistake.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Georg M Schmölzer

30 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-21820R1

Feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultra-wideband radar in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hyun-Kyung Park,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 20 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Review of: Feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultrawideband radar in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Lee WH et al. PONE-D-20-21820R1

Lee et al report the ‘next step’ in development of a non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring technology for heart rate and respiratory rate monitoring of newborn infants. This follows their pre-clinical report published last year (Park JY et al, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6695386/ ). It is well written, and provides information on a promising technology. They do a good job in describing the limitations and next steps before this technology moves closer to clinical application. As a non-statistician, my most significant question for this or a follow-on question is how reliable, valid and accurate the new technology is relative to the gold standard when analyzing high and low Heart Rates and respiratory rates? Can alarms be triggered? Would they be triggered too often, not often enough, or at an expected rate? Other minor comments/questions follow.

Introduction.

The authors might want to identify citations to justify the statement: “Repetitive replacement of electrodes and the twining wires around the arm or leg cause skin damage, infections due to skin layer breakdown, permanent scars, and circulatory disturbances, particularly in premature infants with fragile skin. There may even be a risk of hypothermia during procedures, which could cause circulatory disturbances, particularly in premature infants.

In addition to reference 2, the authors may want to cite a more recent reference on the impact of all the current leads in use on family interactions with their neonates (Bonner O, et al. 'There were more wires than him': the potential for wireless patient monitoring in neonatal intensive care. BMJ Innov. 2017;3(1):12-18. doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000145).

METHODS

Very minor, but in the location for MATLAB, the authors list the company location as “MathWorks, New York, MA, USA”). I think the headquarters of the company is Natick, MA, USA.

Very minor, line 176 of the revised manuscript w/ tracked changes, one word is misspelled: “...want to increase the Frames per sencod (FPS) of the radar to increase the quality of...” should be “...want to increase the Frames per second (FPS) of the radar to increase the quality of...”.

I am not that statistically savvy, but would be interested in how well the correlations hold up at the lower and upper extremes of HR and RR. Are there specific statistical tests for measurement comparisons w/ gold standard technologies that accentuate the evaluation of the extremes? Maybe something like Figure 4 with HR and RR low, high and middle rates in place of the BW groupings would give a visual representation that I’m sure a wise statistician could translate more quantitatively.

DISCUSSION

It’s one really good thing to pick up the normal range for HR and RR. How does the radar technology perform in picking up apnea and bradycardia? Could the authors in this (or a subsequent) paper tell the reader specifically about correlations between two techniques in alarms and abnormal readings on the low and high ends of both HR and RR?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 28;15(12):e0243939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243939.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 Nov 2020

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Review of: Feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultrawideband radar in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Lee WH et al. PONE-D-20-21820R1

Lee et al report the ‘next step’ in development of a non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring technology for heart rate and respiratory rate monitoring of newborn infants. This follows their pre-clinical report published last year (Park JY et al, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6695386/ ). It is well written, and provides information on a promising technology. They do a good job in describing the limitations and next steps before this technology moves closer to clinical application. As a non-statistician, my most significant question for this or a follow-on question is how reliable, valid and accurate the new technology is relative to the gold standard when analyzing high and low Heart Rates and respiratory rates? Can alarms be triggered? Would they be triggered too often, not often enough, or at an expected rate? Other minor comments/questions follow.

Introduction.

The authors might want to identify citations to justify the statement: “Repetitive replacement of electrodes and the twining wires around the arm or leg cause skin damage, infections due to skin layer breakdown, permanent scars, and circulatory disturbances, particularly in premature infants with fragile skin. There may even be a risk of hypothermia during procedures, which could cause circulatory disturbances, particularly in premature infants.

In addition to reference 2, the authors may want to cite a more recent reference on the impact of all the current leads in use on family interactions with their neonates (Bonner O, et al. 'There were more wires than him': the potential for wireless patient monitoring in neonatal intensive care. BMJ Innov. 2017;3(1):12-18. doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000145).

: Thanks for your comments. As you advised, we have added the above reference to our manuscript (Reference 9).

METHODS

Very minor, but in the location for MATLAB, the authors list the company location as “MathWorks, New York, MA, USA”). I think the headquarters of the company is Natick, MA, USA.

: Thank you for your comments. We have modified the location of the company’s headquarter in Line 131.

Very minor, line 176 of the revised manuscript w/ tracked changes, one word is misspelled: “...want to increase the Frames per sencod (FPS) of the radar to increase the quality of...” should be “...want to increase the Frames per second (FPS) of the radar to increase the quality of...”.

: Thank you for your comments. The corresponding misspelled words was modified and corrected in line 178.

I am not that statistically savvy, but would be interested in how well the correlations hold up at the lower and upper extremes of HR and RR. Are there specific statistical tests for measurement comparisons w/ gold standard technologies that accentuate the evaluation of the extremes? Maybe something like Figure 4 with HR and RR low, high and middle rates in place of the BW groupings would give a visual representation that I’m sure a wise statistician could translate more quantitatively.

: Thank you for the comment. We have compared the bias levels among the 3 body weight groups through a graphical presentation and one sample t-test in the last manuscript. However, the more proper method to compare the bias levels among 3 groups would be one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) with/without post-hoc tests such as Bonferroni or Tukey method. Therefore, we included the results of ANOVA tests among the 3 body weight groups in the revised manuscript (Figure 5A).

In response to your comment, we think that the bias levels between the radar and the conventional methods could also be compared among categories divided using HR and RR. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients should not be used for the comparison because there were no established methods for the correction of the range restriction problem that must follow the categorization of the variable through dividing the data range. However, comparisons of the biases between two measurements could bypass this problem. We defined HR and RR > upper 5% and < lower 5% as the extreme values and divided the measurements into 3 categories as follow; Category 1: <5%, Category 2: 5~95% and Category 3: >95%. HRs were divided at 115 and 149 bpm and RRs were divided at 25 and 67 breaths/minute. We compared the bias levels between the two measurement methods among these 3 groups for both HR and RR using graphical presentations and one-any ANOVA (Figure 5B).

The biases between the two measurement methods were smaller in the category 2 (5%~95%) in both HR and RR and the radar measured HR and RR more frequently in the low HR and RR range and less frequently in the high HR and RR range.

In accordance with your comment, we revised the manuscript including these analysis results as Figure 5B.

DISCUSSION

It’s one really good thing to pick up the normal range for HR and RR. How does the radar technology perform in picking up apnea and bradycardia? Could the authors in this (or a subsequent) paper tell the reader specifically about correlations between two techniques in alarms and abnormal readings on the low and high ends of both HR and RR?

: Thank you for your comments. We are developing algorithms to detect apnea, arrhythmia and bradycardia using radar technology. However, in the NICU environment, the treatment comes first when the symptoms appear, so the low number of times apnea, arrhythmia, and bradycardia have occurred is early to verify the accuracy of detecting them. We will conduct an experiment to accurately detect and verify the accuracy of this part in further research.

Plsease see attched "(2nd) Response to Reviewers" file.

Attachment

Submitted filename: (2nd) Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Georg M Schmölzer

1 Dec 2020

Feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultra-wideband radar in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

PONE-D-20-21820R2

Dear Dr. Hyun-Kyung Park,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Georg M Schmölzer

15 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-21820R2

Feasibility of non-contact cardiorespiratory monitoring using impulse-radio ultra-wideband radar in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Dear Dr. Park:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Georg M. Schmölzer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

    (DOC)

    S1 Data. To quantify the amount of movement Ei, the results of the squared value of each component of the difference between the nth received radar signal and the n−1 received radar signal over a given threshold T[k] are added together.

    This approach is suitable for quantifying and assessing an infant's movements because the more the infant moves, the greater the continuous change in signals received from the radar. This method is also used to measure sedentary movement without any change in position [25].

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. The spectrum of the radar signals in the frequency domain and the heartbeat waveforms obtained from the radar in real time.

    (A) The waveform with the highest magnitude represents the RR frequency location in the spectrum. To extract the HR components, RR harmonic components were removed using the notch filter. Because the magnitudes of RR harmonic components decrease exponentially, the magnitude of the 3rd harmonic component was negligible compared to that of the HR frequency component. (B) Heartbeat waveforms from IR-UWB radar and ECG. The signal waveforms from heartbeats correspond well with the R wave of ECG waveforms.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Representative examples of the HR and RR with notable movement.

    The blue and red lines represent measurements from the radar (RRRd, HRRd) and ECG/IPG (RRIPG, HRECG) over 2.5 minutes, respectively. The degree of movement is presented with arbitrary units based on the distance from the IR-UWB radar (the lowest panel). The HR and RR values of the two sensors differ significantly when notable movement occurs.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. The correlation and accuracy between the RRRd derived from the IR-UWB radar and the RRIPG from IPG when neonates were stable in the (A) BW1 group, (B) BW2 group, and (C) BW3 group.

    The RRRd shows strong agreement with the RRIPG regardless of body weight. Pearson’s correlation coefficient is shown in the left panel of each graph, and the mean difference and the lower and upper limits of agreement by Bland-Altman plots are indicated by the two blue (±1.96 SD) or red (±3 SD) dotted lines in the right panel of each graph.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig. The correlation and accuracy between the HRRd derived from the IR-UWB radar and the HRECG from ECG when neonates were stable in the (A) BW1 group, (B) BW2 group, and (C) BW3 group.

    The HRRd also agreed well with the HRECG regardless of body weight. Pearson’s correlation coefficient is shown in the left panel of each graph, and the mean difference and the lower and upper limits of agreement by Bland-Altman plota are indicated by the two blue (±1.96 SD) or red (±3 SD) dotted lines in the right panel of each graph.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Agreement between IR-UWB Radar and ECG/IPG for HR and RR measurements when the neonates were stable: Signal matching, correlations, and differences according to the BW groups.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Clinical trial protocol original language.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Clinical trial protocol translation.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: (2nd) Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES