Do anthropometric parameters change the characteristics of snoring sound?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snoring sounds is commonly known to be associated with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). There are many studies trying to distinguish between the snoring sounds of non-OSA and those of OSA patients. However, OSA is only one of the conditions that affect the structure of upper airway. In this study, we investigated the effect of anthropometric parameters on the snoring sounds. Since snoring sounds are non-Gaussian signals by nature, we derived its Higher Order Statistical (HOS) features and investigated the statistical significance of the anthropometric parameters on each of these features. Data were collected from 40 patients with different levels of OSA. Tracheal respiratory sounds collected by a microphone placed over suprasternal notch, were recorded simultaneously with full-night Polysomnography (PSG) data during sleep. The snoring segments were identified semi-automatically from respiratory sounds using an unsupervised snore detection algorithm. The bispectrum of each SS segment was estimated. We calculated two common HOS measures, Skewness and Kurtosis, plus a new feature called Projected Median Bifrequency (PMBF) from the SS segments. Then, we investigated the statistical relationship between these features and anthropometric parameters such as height, Body Mass Index (BMI), age, gender, and Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI). The result showed that gender, BMI, height, and AHI are the parameters that do change the characteristics of snoring sounds significantly.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".