Estimating the parameters of audible clinical percussion signals by fitting exponentially damped harmonics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Used for centuries in the clinical practice, audible percussion is a method of eliciting sounds by tapping various areas of the human body either by finger tips or by a percussion hammer. Despite its advantages, pulmonary diagnostics by percussion is still highly subjective, depends on the physician's skills, and requires quiet surroundings. Automation of this well-established technique could help amplify its existing merits while removing the above drawbacks. In this work, clinical percussion signals from normal volunteers are decomposed into a sum of exponentially damped sinusoids (EDS) whose parameters are determined using the Matrix Pencil Method. Some EDS represent transient oscillation modes of the thorax/abdomen excited by the percussion event, while others are associated with the noise. It is demonstrated that relatively few EDS are usually enough to accurately reconstruct the original signal. It is shown that combining the frequency and damping parameters of these most significant EDS allows for efficient classification of percussion signals into the two main types historically known as "resonant" and "tympanic." This classification ability can provide a basis for the automated objective diagnostics of various pulmonary pathologies including pneumothorax. The algorithm can be implemented on an embedded platform for the battlefield and other emergency applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".