Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Fuzzy Fault Detection and Band-Conditioned Data Quality Assessment for Sensor Streams: A Continuous Glucose Monitoring Case Study.

Created on 27 Oct 2026

Authors

Juan F Gaitán-Guerrero, Carmen Martínez-Cruz, Macarena Espinilla, José L López

Published in

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). Volume 26. Issue 20. Oct 12, 2026. Epub Oct 12, 2026.

Abstract

Sensor faults can propagate beyond raw measurements and distort the aggregates used to interpret a monitored phenomenon. We propose a domain-agnostic, five-layer fuzzy pipeline that characterizes the reliability of a sensor stream jointly over time and value bands and carries it through to every derived aggregate: (L1) fault tagging of each sample against five fuzzy failure primitives; (L2) fuzzy windowing; (L3) band reliability; (L4) routed repair with propagated reconstruction uncertainty; and (L5) veracity aggregation with linguistic protoforms. An end-to-end acquisition architecture is also specified. The pipeline was instantiated for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with clinical knowledge of glucose dynamics and applied to a 14-month recording of an adult with type 1 diabetes (FreeStyle Libre 3, 5-min cadence), of which 294 days contained at least 120 readings. Clean reference days remained essentially unchanged (mean sample quality 0.98-0.99). On the most corrupted day, the estimated time below range fell from 16% to 3%, with a veracity of only 0.14. Over the recording, 38% of the days were too unreliable to phenotype and 5% changed phenotype. Joint time- and band-conditioned reliability assessment thus prevents corrupted sensor data from producing falsely precise clinical conclusions.

PMID:
42944303
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 27 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 11
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement