Automatic detection of wheezes by evaluation of multiple acoustic feature extraction methods and C-weighted SVM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work addresses the problem of lung sound classification, in particular, the problem of distinguishing between wheeze and normal sounds. Wheezing sound detection is an important step to associate lung sounds with an abnormal state of the respiratory system, usually associated with tuberculosis or another chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD). The paper presents an approach for automatic lung sound classification, which uses different state-of-the-art sound features in combination with a C-weighted support vector machine (SVM) classifier that works better for unbalanced data. Feature extraction methods used here are commonly applied in speech recognition and related problems thanks to the fact that they capture the most informative spectral content from the original signals. The evaluated methods were: Fourier transform (FT), wavelet decomposition using Wavelet Packet Transform bank of filters (WPT) and Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC). For comparison, we evaluated and contrasted the proposed approach against previous works using different combination of features and/or classifiers. The different methods were evaluated on a set of lung sounds including normal and wheezing sounds. A leave-two-out per-case cross-validation approach was used, which, in each fold, chooses as validation set a couple of cases, one including normal sounds and the other including wheezing sounds. Experimental results were reported in terms of traditional classification performance measures: sensitivity, specificity and balanced accuracy. Our best results using the suggested approach, C-weighted SVM and MFCC, achieve a 82.1% of balanced accuracy obtaining the best result for this problem until now. These results suggest that supervised classifiers based on kernel methods are able to learn better models for this challenging classification problem even using the same feature extraction methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".