Dynamic Risk Management for Cooperative Autonomous Medical Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Fábio L. LeiteJr.Email author
  • Daniel Schneider
  • Rasmus Adler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11094)


Medical cyber-physical systems (MCPS) combine independent devices at runtime in order to render new patient monitoring/control functionalities, such as physiological closed loops for controlling drug infusion and optimization of alarms. MCPS and their relevant system contexts are highly variable, which detrimentally affects the application of established safety assurance methodologies. In this paper, we introduce an approach based on dynamic risk assessment and control for MCPS. During runtime, information regarding the safety properties of the constituent systems, relevant information about the patient’s characteristics, as well as other relevant context information is utilized to dynamically and continuously optimize the system performance while guaranteeing an acceptable level of safety. We evaluated our approach by means of a patient-controlled analgesia proof-of-concept simulation and sensitivity analysis.


Medical cyber-physical systems System of systems Adaptive systems Cooperative system Autonomous systems Runtime risk management Modular safety certification Risk assessment 



The ongoing research that led to this paper is funded by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) under grant CSF 201715/2014-7 in cooperation with Fraunhofer IESE and TU Kaiserslautern. We would also like to thank Sonnhild Namingha for proofreading.


  1. 1.
    Lee, I., Sokolsky, O., et al.: Challenges and research directions in medical cyber-physical systems. Proc. IEEE. 100, 75–90 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneider, D., Trapp, M.: Conditional safety certification of open adaptive systems. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 8, 1–20 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurd, Z., Kelly, T., McDermid, J., Calinescu, R., Kwiatkowska, M.: Establishing a framework for dynamic risk management in ‘intelligent’ aero-engine control. In: Buth, B., Rabe, G., Seyfarth, T. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5775, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Machin, M., Guiochet, J., Waeselynck, H., Blanquart, J., Roy, M., Masson, L.: SMOF: A safety monitoring framework for autonomous systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. Syst. 1–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thieme, C.A., Utne, I.B.: A risk model for autonomous marine systems and operation focusing on human–autonomy collaboration. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O J. Risk Reliab. 231, 446–464 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wardziński, A.: Safety assurance strategies for autonomous vehicles. In: Harrison, M.D., Sujan, M.-A. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5219, pp. 277–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feth, P., Schneider, D., Adler, R.: A conceptual safety supervisor definition and evaluation framework for autonomous systems. In: Tonetta, S., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10488, pp. 135–148. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leite, F.L., Adler, R., Feth, P.: Safety assurance for autonomous and collaborative medical cyber-physical systems. In: Tonetta, S., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10489, pp. 237–248. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wei, R., Kelly, T.P., Hawkins, R., Armengaud, E.: DEIS: dependability engineering innovation for cyber-physical systems. In: Seidl, M., Zschaler, S. (eds.) STAF 2017. LNCS, vol. 10748, pp. 409–416. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Medawar, S., Scholle, D., Sljivo, I.: Cooperative safety critical CPS platooning in SafeCOP. In: 2017 6th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cremer, F., Den Breejen, E., Schutte, K.: Sensor data fusion for anti-personnel land-mine detection. In: Proceedings of EuroFusion 1998, International Conference on Data Fusion, pp. 55–60 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Challa, S., Koks, D.: Bayesian and Dempster-Shafer fusion. Sadhana 29, 145–174 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stevens, N., et al.: Smart alarms: multivariate medical alarm integration for post CABG surgery patients. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT - IHI 2012, p. 533. ACM Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang, Y., Tan, P., Song, H., Wan, B., Hosseini, M., Sha, L.: A self-adaptively evolutionary screening approach for sepsis patient. In: IEEE 29th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), pp. 60–65, August 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brito, M., Griffiths, G.: A bayesian approach for predicting risk of autonomous underwater vehicle loss during their missions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 146, 55–67 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lynn, L.A., Curry, J.P.: Patterns of unexpected in-hospital deaths: a root cause analysis. Patient Saf. Surg. 5, 3 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Practices institute for safe medication: fatal PCA adverse events continue to happen… Better patient monitoring is essential to prevent harm, 41, 736–738 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jensen, F.V.: An introduction to Bayesian networks. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ross, T.J. (University of N.M.): Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Wiley, Chichester (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Software Engineering: Dependability KaiserslauternUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Center for Strategic Health Technologies – NUTESParaíba State University (UEPB)Campina GrandeBrazil
  3. 3.Fraunhofer IESEKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations