MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027975809 · doi:10.1121/1.4778094

Monitoring changes of human airways by acoustical means

2005· article· en· W2027975809 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Pasterkamp

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirflowSpirometryMedicineAirwaySmall airwaysConstrictionBronchoconstrictionAcousticsAsthmaCardiologyAnesthesiaInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The state of human airways is typically assessed by spirometry, i.e., by measuring airflow during maximum forced expiration. The required effort excludes subjects who cannot or will not perform such maneuvers. Turbulent airflow during normal breathing generates sound that can be recorded at the chest surface. Changes in airway caliber, e.g., by constriction or dilation, and concurrent changes in the tension of the airway walls affect the relation of airflow and breath sounds. This relation is complex and incompletely understood. However, the possibility to assess changes in the state of human airways by the relation of airflow and breath sounds promises an opportunity to develop auxiliary methods to spirometry. Two regions of the human airways have attracted the interest of researchers in respiratory acoustics. Breath sounds over the trachea (windpipe) increase in their airflow-specific intensity on narrowing of the upper airways, e.g., due to abnormal anatomy, infectious causes etc. Furthermore, spectral characteristics of tracheal sounds may indicate the region of abnormality. On the other hand, breath sounds over the chest change in their airflow-specific intensity with constriction of airways in the lung, e.g., due to asthma. It may therefore be possible to monitor the effectiveness of treatment by acoustical means.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207