Improving the Accuracy and Efficiency of Respiratory Rate Measurements in Children Using Mobile Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recommended method for measuring respiratory rate (RR) is counting breaths for 60 s using a timer. This method is not efficient in a busy clinical setting. There is an urgent need for a robust, low-cost method that can help front-line health care workers to measure RR quickly and accurately. Our aim was to develop a more efficient RR assessment method. RR was estimated by measuring the median time interval between breaths obtained from tapping on the touch screen of a mobile device. The estimation was continuously validated by measuring consistency (% deviation from the median) of each interval. Data from 30 subjects estimating RR from 10 standard videos with a mobile phone application were collected. A sensitivity analysis and an optimization experiment were performed to verify that a RR could be obtained in less than 60 s; that the accuracy improves when more taps are included into the calculation; and that accuracy improves when inconsistent taps are excluded. The sensitivity analysis showed that excluding inconsistent tapping and increasing the number of tap intervals improved the RR estimation. Efficiency (time to complete measurement) was significantly improved compared to traditional methods that require counting for 60 s. There was a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency. The most balanced optimization result provided a mean efficiency of 9.9 s and a normalized root mean square error of 5.6%, corresponding to 2.2 breaths/min at a respiratory rate of 40 breaths/min. The obtained 6-fold increase in mean efficiency combined with a clinically acceptable error makes this approach a viable solution for further clinical testing. The sensitivity analysis illustrating the trade-off between accuracy and efficiency will be a useful tool to define a target product profile for any novel RR estimation device.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".