An Edge-Cloud Collaborative Architecture for Proactive Elderly Care: Real-Time Risk Assessment and Three-Level Emergency Response
Authors: Lijie Zhou, Luran Wang
Organizations: School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, China · School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, China
The rapid aging of global populations has created an urgent need for intelligent healthcare monitoring systems to ensure the safety of elderly individuals living independently. Existing cloud-centric platforms face critical limitations, including high latency unsuitable for emergency response, privacy risks from continuous transmission of sensitive data, and limited, single-channel alert mechanisms lacking scalability and context awareness. This paper proposes an edge-cloud collaborative architecture that addresses these challenges through real-time multi-modal sensor fusion, a four-dimensional risk assessment model, and a three-level emergency response system. The framework adopts a five-layer design - device, edge, service, data, and application layers - enabling real-time risk evaluation with end-to-end alert latency under three seconds. At the edge, a weighted multi-modal fusion algorithm integrates data from five sensor types with confidence propagation. A unified risk score is generated by combining fall probability, physiological indicators, behavioral patterns, and sensor anomaly metrics. Based on dynamic thresholds, a three-tier notification system coordinates responses among family members, community doctors, and nearby volunteers. Experiments on CASAS, MIMIC-III, and SisFall datasets show that the approach achieves 91% activity recognition accuracy and an 84% anomaly detection F1-score, outperforming single-sensor methods. Deployment on Raspberry Pi 4 gateways demonstrates sub-100 ms inference latency while preserving privacy by keeping raw data local. This architecture advances practical, privacy-preserving, and responsive elderly care systems.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Five-layer edge-cloud collaborative architecture showing data flow from physical sensors through edge gateway to cloud services and end-user applications.
Sensor Type
Protocol
Rate
Weight
Smart Wristband
BLE
1–100 Hz
1.0
Motion Sensor
Zigbee
10 Hz
0.8
Camera
WiFi
15–30 Hz
0.9
Door Sensor
Zigbee
Event
–
Bed Sensor
Zigbee
1 Hz
0.6
TABLE I: Sensor Types and Reliability Weights
Fig. 2: Edge gateway processing pipeline showing the flow from sensor data acquisition through fusion, inference, and alert generation.
Fig. 3: Multi-database architecture showing PostgreSQL for business data, InfluxDB for time-series health data, and Redis for caching.
Fig. 4: Four-dimensional risk scoring model showing the integration of fall probability, health risk, behavioral indicators, and sensor anomaly scores with dynamic adjustment factors.
Fig. 5: Dynamic threshold-based alert level determination showing the four alert levels and their corresponding response mechanisms.
Fig. 6: Three-level notification mechanism showing the escalation from family notification through doctor notification to volunteer dispatch based on alert level.
Fig. 7: Web dashboard interface showing real-time health monitoring, alert management, device status, and health report generation capabilities.
Dataset
Subjects
Duration
Samples
Features
SisFall
23
–
17,050
Accel., Gyro (3-axis each)
CASAS (aruba)
1
214 days
2,341,970
Motion, door, temp sensors
CASAS (cairo)
1
27 days
261,728
Motion, door, item sensors
MIMIC-III
40,000+
Varied
Millions
HR, SpO 2 , BP, Resp.
TABLE II: Dataset Statistics
Method
Activity Acc.
Posture Acc.
Anomaly F1
Wristband only
0.82
0.78
0.71
Motion sensor only
0.74
0.65
0.58
Camera only
0.79
0.88
0.63
Equal-weight fusion
0.88
0.86
0.79
Weighted fusion (ours)
0.91
0.89
0.84
TABLE III: Sensor Fusion Performance Comparison
Configuration
Precision
Recall
F1
Full 4D model
0.89
0.93
0.91
Fall only (w=1.0)
0.82
0.79
0.80
Fall + Health (equal)
0.86
0.88
0.87
w/o Trend adjustment
0.87
0.90
0.88
w/o Dynamic adjustment
0.85
0.91
0.88
TABLE IV: Risk Model Ablation Study
Fig. 8: ROC curve for the four-dimensional risk scoring model showing AUC of 0.94.
School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, China · School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, China