Automated analysis of paradoxical ribcage motion during sleep in infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of thoracoabdominal asynchrony (TAS) during breathing is currently detected by visual coding of records of ribcage (RC) and abdominal (AB) movements. There is thus a need to automate this process in order to save time and improve TAS detection accuracy. We studied 15 infants of 39-49 weeks postconceptional age. RC and AB signals were recorded continuously by inductance plethysmography for 4-24 hr immediately after herniorraphy. In our novel analysis approach, the records were divided into 10 sec epochs, and the equation RC = alphaAB + beta was fit to each epoch, using recursive linear regression with an exponential memory time constant of 1 and 2 sec. This yielded 10 sec signals for alpha corresponding to each epoch. The fraction of time that each alpha signal was positive was taken as a measure of synchrony between RC and AB for that epoch, while asynchrony was indicated by the fraction of time the signal was negative. We also assessed synchrony and asynchrony using a conventional measure known as thoracic delay (TD), which is based on the degree to which the peaks in RC and AB are coincident in time. Using TD as the basis of comparison, we found that our new recursive least squares method gave a positive predictive value of 99%. We conclude that our recursive least squares method is able to accurately identify portions of the RC and AB records that correspond to TAS, and we speculate that it may be useful in automating detection of TAS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".