Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

SpiRadar: Radar-Based Non-Contact Spirometry via Sparse Polynomial Framework

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SpiRadar claims that mmWave radar alone can reconstruct forced spirometry curves in children with 0.23 L root-mean-square error and 89.5% bronchodilator-response classification accuracy, without per-subject calibration.

desk verdict A promising radar-spirometry framework with a real validation flaw: the headline numbers are likely optimistic because model selection used the same data that the LOOCV later tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19798 v1 pith:DA33B2EA submitted 2026-07-22 eess.SP

Yonathan Eder , Yhonatan Kvich , Naama Golan , Adi Wagerhoff , Safit Levy , Lior Barbash , Ron Berant , Patrick Stafler
show 1 more author
Yonina C. Eldar
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords non-contactspirometrymmWaveFMCWradarpediatricasthmasparseoptimizationpolynomialtransformationbronchodilatorresponsethoracicdisplacementpulmonaryfunctiontesting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a millimeter-wave radar pointed at a child's chest can replace the mouthpiece-and-nose-clip spirometer for measuring forced expiration, producing full volume-time and flow-volume curves rather than just a few parameters. The core idea is that a feature-dependent polynomial—radar displacement raised to powers, with coefficients that depend on age, height, weight, and radar-derived features—can be learned once on a training cohort and applied to new subjects with no individual calibration. On 39 children (58 trials, including asthma patients before and after bronchodilator), subject-level leave-one-out validation yields a curve reconstruction error of 0.23 L, FVC correlation of 0.90, FEV1 correlation of 0.85, and 89.5% accuracy in classifying bronchodilator response. If true, this would make spirometry feasible for young children, home monitoring, and telehealth scenarios where cooperation or contact is a barrier.

What carries the argument

The central object is the feature-dependent polynomial model s = V C α (equivalently s = D c with D = αᵀ ⊗ V): a Vandermonde matrix V built from powers of the radar displacement vector, a learned sparse coefficient matrix C, and a feature vector α of anthropometric and radar-derived values. This makes the radar-to-volume relation subject-adaptable without per-subject calibration, because the coefficients are shared across the population while the features personalize the curve for each subject. Sparsity (LASSO, solved with FISTA) prunes the expanded IQ-dimensional coefficient space, and the logarithmic interpolation correction enforces the assumed monotonicity of the radar trace.

What would settle it

Record simultaneous spirometer and radar data while subjects perform forced exhalations with deliberately inserted brief pauses or partial inspiratory efforts (making the true volume-time curve non-monotonic). If SpiRadar's log-interpolation correction replaces those real segments with smooth monotonic curves, the reconstructed FEV1 and curve RMSE will degrade exactly in the corrected window compared to a version with the correction disabled; if the correction is only removing true artifacts, performance will improve. Comparing corrected vs uncorrected reconstructions on such data would settle

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the mapping from radar-measured thoracic displacement v to spirometric volume s during forced expiration can be captured by a cubic polynomial whose coefficients are linear functions of subject features, and that the combined coefficient vector can be learned sparsely from a multi-subject cohort and applied to unseen subjects. Concretely, s = V C α, where V is the Vandermonde matrix of displacement powers, C is the learned coefficient matrix, and α includes anthropometric and radar-derived features; via the Kronecker product the model linearizes to s = D c, and c is recovered with ℓ1-regularized least squares. The framework also relies on a preprocessing ste

Load-bearing premise

The preprocessing step assumes that any non-monotonic segment of the radar chest-displacement trace during forced exhalation is an artifact rather than real volume change, and replaces those segments with a logarithmic curve fixed by the trace's endpoints and prior slope; if real expiratory pauses or reversals exist, every reconstructed curve and parameter inherits the assumed shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spirometry curves and key parameters (FVC, FEV1, ratio, PEF) can be obtained from radar alone in a calibration-free manner, removing the mouthpiece and nose-clip requirement that limits pediatric cooperation.
  • Clinicians would gain access to the flow-volume loop morphology non-invasively, preserving diagnostic information (obstructive vs restrictive patterns) that direct parameter regression discards.
  • BDR assessment at 89.5% accuracy could support asthma diagnosis and medication-response decisions without repeated contact measurements.
  • Subject-level LOOCV indicates the learned polynomial coefficients generalize to children not seen in training, a prerequisite for home monitoring after a one-time population-level training.
  • The framework's performance is fairly insensitive to polynomial order ≥3 and regularization over three orders of magnitude, easing deployment tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the calibration-free mapping holds beyond the clinic, it opens the door to longitudinal home monitoring where day-to-day FEV1 trend, rather than a single clinic reading, becomes the diagnostic signal.
  • The feature-dependent polynomial might transfer to other non-contact displacement sources (e.g., camera-based chest tracking), since the model depends only on a displacement trace and features, not on radar-specific quantities.
  • A direct test with simultaneous contact and radar measurement during deliberately interrupted exhalations would clarify whether the monotonicity assumption is a helpful physiological prior or a source of bias in abnormal breathing patterns.
  • Pediatric asthma monitoring at home would need robustness to posture changes and device placement; the paper does not test these, so the next most valuable experiment is a longitudinal study with natural movement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SpiRadar, a mmWave FMCW radar framework for non-contact spirometry. The method preprocesses radar thoracic displacement, enforces monotonicity via a logarithmic interpolation correction, and models the volume curve as a feature-dependent polynomial in displacement with coefficients learned through a LASSO-regularized linear model. The authors validate on a pediatric cohort of 39 subjects (58 trials) using subject-level leave-one-out cross-validation, reporting curve reconstruction RMSE of 0.23±0.12 L, FVC correlation r=0.902, FEV1 correlation r=0.846, and BDR classification accuracy of 89.5%. They compare against linear/polynomial curve-fitting baselines and a direct parameter-regression baseline.

Significance. If the reported results are unbiased, this would be a meaningful step toward non-contact spirometry, with particular value for pediatric asthma monitoring. The study has notable strengths: simultaneous external spirometer ground truth, subject-level partitioning that avoids trial-level leakage for patients with paired pre/post-BD measurements, and baseline methods that receive the same preprocessed inputs. The sparse polynomial framework is a sensible and well-motivated way to combine radar-derived displacement with anthropometric features. However, the central generalization claim is compromised by non-nested model selection, and an important preprocessing assumption is not directly validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections V-D.1, V-D.2, V-D.3 and IV-D] The reported LOOCV is not nested. The polynomial order I=3 is selected from Fig. 11, the LASSO weight gamma=10 from Fig. 12, and the feature FVC_R is removed after inspecting its correlations in Section V-D.3. These analyses appear to use the full 58-trial LOOCV folds. The held-out subjects are therefore not unseen with respect to these design choices; the headline numbers (mean RMSE 0.23±0.12 L, FVC r=0.902, FEV1 r=0.846, BDR accuracy 89.5%) are the result of selecting a configuration that minimizes error on the same folds used for evaluation. The bias is in an unknown direction and magnitude. This is a load-bearing issue because the paper's central claim is calibration-free generalization to unseen subjects. Please fix hyperparameters a priori, or perform an inner subject-level LOOCV for model selection and an outer LOOCV for evaluation, or otherwise re-estimate the final performance a
  2. [Section III-A.1, step 4 (and Assumption B-1)] The logarithmic interpolation correction replaces non-monotonic radar displacement segments with a logarithmic curve whose parameters are fixed by endpoints and prior slope. This enforces Assumption B-1 (monotonicity) rather than testing it. The ablation in V-D.4 (Table VI) shows that the correction improves downstream metrics, but it compares two versions of the same preprocessing; it does not establish that the non-monotonic segments contain no volume-related information. If those segments reflect real thoracic motion (e.g., chest-wall recoil, upper-body movement, or multi-organ displacement), every reconstructed curve and derived parameter is biased toward the assumed shape. This is a physiological modeling assumption central to the pipeline. Please report the proportion and magnitude of corrected segments, and analyze error as a function of correction magnitude, or discuss this as a
minor comments (4)
  1. [Author list and metadata] The author names contain spacing artifacts: 'Y onathan Eder', 'Y onathan Kvich', 'Y onina C. Eldar' should be 'Yonathan', 'Yonina'.
  2. [Section V-D.3] Typo: 'ANOV A F-statistics' should be 'ANOVA F-statistics'.
  3. [Throughout] Inconsistent notation: 'FEV1' vs 'FEV 1' in text and tables; unify to a single style, e.g., 'FEV₁'.
  4. [Section V-A / Fig. 5] The caption says 'box height' indicates the mean, which is unconventional for box plots; clarify the actual box plot elements (e.g., IQR, whiskers) or use a different visualization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: the radar-to-spirometry mapping is learned on disjoint training folds and evaluated against an external spirometer. The strongest concerns in the paper are validation/selection-bias issues, not equation-level tautology.

full rationale

The central derivation is supervised: s = Dc (Eq. 10), with D = α^T ⊗ V (Eq. 9), and c is estimated on training subjects via LASSO (Eq. 16). Held-out test curves are then ŝ = Dĉ from radar displacement v and features α only, and are compared to a CE-certified spirometer reference. This is not circular: the predicted curves are not equal by construction to any fitted quantity. The log-interpolation preprocessing (Section III-A.1, step 4) enforces monotonicity from radar endpoints and prior slope; it is a physiological modeling assumption, not a reuse of spirometry labels, so it is not self-definitional. The self-citations [11], [12], [24], [25] provide a displacement-extraction subroutine (RaLU-JSR), but the end-to-end external comparison would expose a broken subroutine; they are not a uniqueness theorem or a restatement of the claimed result. The main legitimate concern is in Sections V-D.1–V-D.3: polynomial order I=3, regularization γ=10, and the removal of FVC_R appear to be selected using all 58 trials before the subject-level LOOCV described in Section IV-D. This is selection leakage that likely makes the reported metrics optimistic, but it is a statistical validity issue, not a circular derivation. The paper itself flags the 39-subject single-center cohort and controlled-condition limitation in Section VI, which affects generalizability rather than tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are mostly hyperparameters and preprocessing choices selected on the same LOOCV folds. The central modeling axioms are the monotonicity of the processed radar signal and the polynomial volume-displacement relationship.

free parameters (4)
  • Polynomial order I = 3
    Selected in Section V-D.1 by minimizing LOOCV RMSE; no nested validation, so it is tuned on the evaluation folds.
  • LASSO regularization gamma = 10
    Selected in Section V-D.2 from a grid 0-1000 using the same LOOCV evaluation.
  • Radar peak denoise threshold = 30% of maximum, ROI [0.5,1.5] m and ±40 deg
    Hand-chosen in Section III-A.1 to select thoracic candidate locations; affects which radar displacement vector is extracted.
  • Log-interpolation correction parameters = endpoint- and slope-preserving log fit per trial
    Section III-A.1(4) and V-D.4; the correction parameters are derived from the signal itself and impose a monotonic shape.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Subject remains stationary in a fixed range-angle bin during the maneuver (A-1)
    Section II-D; required for joint sparse recovery of the thoracic peak over frames.
  • domain assumption Targets in the radar field of view are sparse (A-2)
    Section II-D; enables the JSR formulation in (14).
  • domain assumption Radar displacement v is monotonically increasing after preprocessing (B-1)
    Section II-D and III-A; the log-interpolation correction enforces this by replacing non-monotonic segments.
  • ad hoc to paper The coefficient vector c is sparse (B-2)
    Section II-D; motivates LASSO but is not derived from physiology or the radar model.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-monotonic radar segments are artifacts, not real volume-related signal
    Section III-A.1(4) and V-D.4; if these segments contain true information, reconstruction is biased toward the assumed log curve.
  • domain assumption Spirometry volume is a polynomial function of radar thoracic displacement with coefficients linear in features
    Section II-C, equations (7)-(9); the core modeling assumption of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SpiRadar: Radar-Based Non-Contact Spirometry via Sparse Polynomial Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DA33B2EA

@misc{pith2026260719798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SpiRadar: Radar-Based Non-Contact Spirometry via Sparse Polynomial Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DA33B2EA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19798}
}
read the original abstract

Chronic respiratory diseases affect hundreds of millions of people worldwide, with spirometry serving as the gold standard for pulmonary function assessment. However, conventional spirometry's reliance on mouthpieces and nose clips creates discomfort and technical challenges that can compromise test quality, particularly in pediatric populations where cooperation difficulties are amplified. This study presents SpiRadar, a comprehensive radar-based framework for non-contact spirometry that eliminates physical contact requirements while enabling accurate curve reconstruction, clinical parameter estimation, and bronchodilator response (BDR) assessment. Our key contributions include: (1) a methodological framework integrating physiologically-motivated preprocessing for robust signal extraction, a feature-dependent polynomial transformation linking radar-measured thoracic displacement to spirometric volume curves, and sparse optimization enabling generalization to unseen subjects without individual calibration; (2) a rigorous validation on a pediatric cohort of 39 subjects (ages 6-18 years) undergoing 58 spirometry trials, including healthy children and asthma patients tested pre- and post-bronchodilator, using subject-level leave-one-out cross-validation; (3) clinical-grade performance outperforming alternative non-contact methods, achieving accurate curve reconstruction (mean RMSE: 0.23 +- 0.12 L) and strong correlations (above 0.84) for key spirometric parameters. BDR classification achieved 89.5% accuracy with balanced sensitivity (90.9%) and specificity (87.5%). These results establish clinical feasibility for our non-contact spirometry approach, with particular promise for pediatric asthma monitoring and remote patient care.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The discrete thoracic movement during expiration is denoted byv ex[l], l= 1,

    Feature-Dependent Polynomial Relationship Consider a radar system that records thoracic displacement of a subject during a forced spirometry maneuver. The discrete thoracic movement during expiration is denoted byv ex[l], l= 1, . . . , L(v) ex , where{v ex[l]}L(v) ex l=1 ∈ {v[l]}L(v) l=1 (5) and L(v) ex ≤L (v). The radar-based expiration segmentv ex[l]is ...

  2. [2]

    For eachj, a design matrixD (j) is constructed fromv (j) andα (j), similarly to (10)

    Concatenated Learning Model To learn a generalizable mapping from radar to spirometry, we useJmeasurement triplets{s (j),v (j),α (j)}J j=1 from mul- tiple subjects. For eachj, a design matrixD (j) is constructed fromv (j) andα (j), similarly to (10). Concatenating all measurements yields the global learning model: ˜s= ˜Dc(11) where ˜s∈R ˜L×1: ˜s≜[s (1)T ,...

  3. [3]

    Learn a transformation mappingcthat relates radar- measured thoracic displacement and subject features to spirometry volume curves across the population, given training data{ ˜s, ˜D}(11)

  4. [4]

    Reconstruct spirometry curves ˆsfor unseen subjects from their radar measurementsvand featuresα

  5. [5]

    Extract clinical parameters (FVC, FEV 1, FEV 1/FVC ra- tio, PEF) from reconstructed curves

  6. [6]

    Assess BDR for asthma patients using the pediatric threshold of≥12%FEV 1 post-BD improvement from pre-BD baseline [27]. III. SPIRADARMETHODOLOGY This section details the implementation of the proposed SpiRadar framework, as depicted in Fig. 1. To ensure rigorous validation and prevent data leakage, we employ subject-level LOOCV , where each fold holds out...

  7. [7]

    Radar Preprocessing Data Assembly and Discretization.The raw radar chan- nel data is processed to construct high-SNR input matrices {Yl}L l=1 conforming to the bilinear model in (1). To reduce noise variance by a factor ofG, we coherently combine G >1consecutive chirps per frame, exploiting the slowness of thoracic movement relative to frame periodT s [11...

  8. [8]

    Feature Vector Assembly The feature vectorα(9) combines anthropometric mea- surements with radar-derived respiratory parameters. An- thropometrics include gender (one-hot encoded as Gender 0, Gender1), age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), and body surface area (BSA), calculated per spirometer standards [29]. Radar-derived parameters computed from p...

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    3(a)): (1) BEV detection; (2) expiration truncation from BEV point to the subsequent min- imum within 7s; (3) flip and shift to zero-starting mono- tonically increasing form

    Spirometry Preprocessing (Training Only) For training subjects, reference spirometry undergoes the following preprocessing (Fig. 3(a)): (1) BEV detection; (2) expiration truncation from BEV point to the subsequent min- imum within 7s; (3) flip and shift to zero-starting mono- ...

  2. [10]

    For each(m, p)candidate: 4.1.Beamform:ˆx m,p[l] = (1/N K)AH mYlBH p 4.2.Extract displacement:ˆv m,p[l] =unwrap(∠(ˆxm,p[l])) 4.3.Smooth, detect BEV , truncate, apply log correction, flip/shift 5.Select optimal( ˆm,ˆp)by longest expiration→v // Feature Vector Assembly 6.Compute ...

  3. [11]

    Informed consent was obtained from each accompanying parent before enrollment

    prior to subject recruitment. Informed consent was obtained from each accompanying parent before enrollment. The study enrolled children aged 6–18 years, divided into two groups. The first group included healthy participants from the general population with no significant unde...

  4. [12]

    Polynomial Order Analysis For polynomial-based methods (SpiRadar and PolyReg), the selection of optimal polynomial orderIis fundamental to achieving an appropriate balance between model expressive- ness and generalization capability. Fig. 11 illustrates the rela- tionship betw...

  5. [13]

    11: RMSE performance versus polynomial order (Spi- Radar and PolyReg) for curve fitting and spirometry parameter estimation compared to other non-contact approaches

    LASSO Regularization Analysis The sparse representation framework requires selecting the regularization parameterγ(16) to balance sparsity with recon- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1 2 3 4 ...

  6. [14]

    The initial formulation included radar-derived FVCR (calculated as maxl{vex[l]}) alongside the features in (15)

    Feature Vector Selection The feature vectorαenables subject-specific adaptation through the feature-dependent polynomial model (7-8). The initial formulation included radar-derived FVCR (calculated as maxl{vex[l]}) alongside the features in (15). Statistical analysis using ANO...

  7. [15]

    Here we analyze the effect of our logarithmic interpolation correction designed to follow the physiological nature of expiratory behavior

    Interpolation Correction Effect As described in the preprocessing pipeline (Section III- A), radar-based thoracic signals may exhibit artifacts during spirometry maneuvers. Here we analyze the effect of our logarithmic interpolation correction designed to follow the physiologi...

  8. [16]

    The global burden of respiratory disease,

    T. Ferkol and D. Schraufnagel, “The global burden of respiratory disease,”Annals of the American Thoracic Society, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 404–406, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    The economic burden of asthma in the united states, 2008–2013,

    T. Nurmagambetov, R. Kuwahara, and P. Garbe, “The economic burden of asthma in the united states, 2008–2013,”Annals of the American Thoracic Society, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 348–356, 2018

    2008

  10. [18]

    The clinical and economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the usa,

    A. J. Guarascio, S. M. Ray, C. K. Finch, and T. H. Self, “The clinical and economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the usa,”ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research, vol. 5, pp. 235–245, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Standardisation of spirometry,

    M. R. Miller, J. Hankinson, V . Brusasco, F. Burgos, R. Casaburi, A. Coates, R. Crapo, P. Enright, C. Van Der Grinten, P. Gustafsson et al., “Standardisation of spirometry,”European Respiratory Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 319–338, 2005

    2005

  12. [20]

    Standardization of spirometry 2019 update. an official american thoracic society and european respiratory society technical statement,

    B. L. Graham, I. Steenbruggen, M. R. Miller, I. Z. Barjaktarevic, B. G. Cooper, G. L. Hall, T. S. Hallstrand, D. A. Kaminsky, K. McCarthy, M. C. McCormacket al., “Standardization of spirometry 2019 update. an official american thoracic society and european respiratory society ...

    2019

  13. [21]

    European respiratory society clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in children aged 5–16 years,

    E. A. Gaillard, C. E. Kuehni, S. Turneret al., “European respiratory society clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in children aged 5–16 years,”European Respiratory Journal, vol. 58, no. 5, p. 2004173, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Children should not be treated like little adults in the pft lab,

    L. Seed, D. Wilson, and A. L. Coates, “Children should not be treated like little adults in the pft lab,”Respiratory Care, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 61–74, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Assessment of home- based monitoring in adults with chronic lung disease: An official american thoracic society research statement,

    Y . H. Khor, V . Poberezhets, R. G. Buhret al., “Assessment of home- based monitoring in adults with chronic lung disease: An official american thoracic society research statement,”American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 211, no. 2, pp. 174–193, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Radar for health care: Rec- ognizing human activities and monitoring vital signs,

    F. Fioranelli, J. Le Kernec, and S. A. Shah, “Radar for health care: Rec- ognizing human activities and monitoring vital signs,”IEEE Potentials, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 16–23, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Systematic literature review regarding heart rate and respiratory rate measurement by means of radar technology,

    M. Liebetruth, K. Kehe, D. Steinritz, and S. Sammito, “Systematic literature review regarding heart rate and respiratory rate measurement by means of radar technology,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 3, p. 892, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Sparsity-based multi-person non-contact vital signs monitoring via fmcw radar,

    Y . Eder and Y . C. Eldar, “Sparsity-based multi-person non-contact vital signs monitoring via fmcw radar,”IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 2806–2817, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Robust phantom-assisted framework for multi-person localiza- tion and vital signs monitoring using mimo fmcw radar,

    Y . Eder, E. Zagoury, S. Savariego, M. Namer, O. Cohen, and Y . C. Eldar, “Robust phantom-assisted framework for multi-person localiza- tion and vital signs monitoring using mimo fmcw radar,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06755, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y . C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok,Compressed sensing: theory and applica- tions. Cambridge university press, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Y . C. Eldar,Sampling theory: Beyond bandlimited systems. Cambridge University Press, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Tidal volume measurement through non-contact doppler radar with dc reconstruction,

    W. Massagram, N. Hafner, V . M. Lubecke, and O. Boric-Lubecke, “Tidal volume measurement through non-contact doppler radar with dc reconstruction,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 3397–3404, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Noncontact spirometry with a webcam,

    C. Liu, Y . Yang, F. Tsow, D. Shao, and N. Tao, “Noncontact spirometry with a webcam,”Journal of Biomedical Optics, vol. 22, no. 5, p. 057002, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Millimetre-wave radar-based spirometry for the preliminary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

    W. Wang, Y . Wan, C. Li, Z. Chen, W. Zhang, L. Zhao, J. Zhao, X. Mu, and G. Li, “Millimetre-wave radar-based spirometry for the preliminary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,”IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1–12, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Ers/ats technical standard on interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests,

    S. Stanojevic, D. A. Kaminsky, M. R. Miller, B. Thompson, A. Aliverti, I. Barjaktarevic, B. G. Cooper, B. Culver, E. Derom, G. L. Hallet al., “Ers/ats technical standard on interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests,”European Respiratory Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Assessment of bronchodilator response in children with asthma. dutch cnsld study group,

    H. Waalkens, P. Merkus, E. van Essen-Zandvliet, P. Brand, J. Gerritsen, E. Duiverman, K. Kerrebijn, K. Knol, and P. H. Quanjer, “Assessment of bronchodilator response in children with asthma. dutch cnsld study group,”European Respiratory Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 645–651, 19...

    1993

  27. [35]

    The fundamentals of millimeter wave radar sensors,

    C. Iovescu and S. Rao, “The fundamentals of millimeter wave radar sensors,”Texas Instruments, pp. 1–7, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Remote monitoring of human vital signs using mm-wave fmcw radar,

    M. Alizadeh, G. Shaker, J. C. De Almeida, P. P. Morita, and S. Safavi- Naeini, “Remote monitoring of human vital signs using mm-wave fmcw radar,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 54 958–54 968, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Vital sign monitoring using fmcw radar in various sleeping scenarios,

    E. Turppa, J. M. Kortelainen, O. Antropov, and T. Kiuru, “Vital sign monitoring using fmcw radar in various sleeping scenarios,”Sensors, vol. 20, no. 22, p. 6505, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Signal processing for tdm mimo fmcw millimeter-wave radar sensors,

    X. Li, X. Wang, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “Signal processing for tdm mimo fmcw millimeter-wave radar sensors,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 167 959– 167 971, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Localization and tracking of gold nanoparticles using mmwave fmcw radar,

    Y . Eder, R. Abel, A. Schroeder, and Y . C. Eldar, “Localization and tracking of gold nanoparticles using mmwave fmcw radar,” inICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2066–2070

    2024

  32. [40]

    Ralu-net: Deep unfolded radar localization of humans for precise multi-person non-contact vital signs monitoring,

    Y . Eder, Y . Kvich, R. Guo, and Y . C. Eldar, “Ralu-net: Deep unfolded radar localization of humans for precise multi-person non-contact vital signs monitoring,” inICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  33. [41]

    The matrix cookbook,

    K. B. Petersen, M. S. Pedersenet al., “The matrix cookbook,”Technical University of Denmark, vol. 7, no. 15, p. 510, 2008

    2008

  34. [42]

    Spirometry in children,

    K. R. Jat, “Spirometry in children,”Primary Care Respiratory Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 221–229, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    What is a savitzky-golay filter?[lecture notes],

    R. W. Schafer, “What is a savitzky-golay filter?[lecture notes],”IEEE Signal processing magazine, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 111–117, 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    smart pft usb,

    M. E. E. GmbH, “smart pft usb,” https://meegmbh.de/en/products/ smart-pft-usb-2/, 2025, accessed: Sep. 15, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Multivariate locally weighted least squares regression,

    D. Ruppert and M. P. Wand, “Multivariate locally weighted least squares regression,”The annals of statistics, pp. 1346–1370, 1994

    1994

  38. [46]

    Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,

    R. Tibshirani, “Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,”Jour- nal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288, 1996

    1996

  39. [47]

    A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algo- rithm for linear inverse problems,

    A. Beck and M. Teboulle, “A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algo- rithm for linear inverse problems,”SIAM journal on imaging sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 183–202, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    D. P. Palomar and Y . C. Eldar,Convex optimization in signal processing and communications. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Min max normalization based data perturbation method for privacy protection,

    Y . K. Jain and S. K. Bhandare, “Min max normalization based data perturbation method for privacy protection,”International Journal of Computer & Communication Technology, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 45–50, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    IWR1443BOOST: mmWave Sensor Evaluation Module,

    Texas Instruments, “IWR1443BOOST: mmWave Sensor Evaluation Module,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ti.com/tool/ IWR1443BOOST

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.