Real-time breath recognition by movies from a small drone landing on victim’s bodies
Abstract In local and global disaster scenes, rapid recognition of victims’ breathing is vital. It is unclear whether the footage transmitted from small drones can enable medical providers to detect breathing. This study investigated the ability of small drones to evaluate breathing correctly after...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/13120739c22b4ade86aab12c716df354 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract In local and global disaster scenes, rapid recognition of victims’ breathing is vital. It is unclear whether the footage transmitted from small drones can enable medical providers to detect breathing. This study investigated the ability of small drones to evaluate breathing correctly after landing on victims’ bodies and hovering over them. We enrolled 46 medical workers in this prospective, randomized, crossover study. The participants were provided with envelopes, from which they were asked to pull four notes sequentially and follow the written instructions (“breathing” and “no breathing”). After they lied on the ground in the supine position, a drone was landed on their abdomen, subsequently hovering over them. Two evaluators were asked to determine whether the participant had followed the “breathing” or “no breathing” instruction based on the real-time footage transmitted from the drone camera. The same experiment was performed while the participant was in the prone position. If both evaluators were able to determine the participant’s breathing status correctly, the results were tagged as “correct.” All experiments were successfully performed. Breathing was correctly determined in all 46 participants (100%) when the drone was landed on the abdomen and in 19 participants when the drone hovered over them while they were in the supine position (p < 0.01). In the prone position, breathing was correctly determined in 44 participants when the drone was landed on the abdomen and in 10 participants when it was kept hovering over them (p < 0.01). Notably, breathing status was misinterpreted as “no breathing” in 8 out of 27 (29.6%) participants lying in the supine position and 13 out of 36 (36.1%) participants lying in the prone position when the drone was kept hovering over them. The landing points seemed wider laterally when the participants were in the supine position than when they were in the prone position. Breathing status was more reliably determined when a small drone was landed on an individual’s body than when it hovered over them. |
|---|