A physical approach to the automated classification of clinical percussion sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chest percussion is a traditional technique used for the physical examination of pulmonary injuries and diseases. It is a method of tapping body parts with fingers or small instruments to evaluate the size, consistency, borders, and presence of fluid/air in the lungs and abdomen. Percussion has been successfully used for the diagnosis of such potentially lethal conditions as traumatic and tension pneumothorax. This technique, however, has certain shortcomings, including limitations of the human ear and the subjectivity of the administrator, that lead to overall low sensitivity. Automation of the method by using a standardized percussion source and computerized classification of digitized signals would remove the subjective factor and other limitations of the technique. It would also enable rapid on-site diagnostics of pulmonary traumas when thorough clinical examination is impossible. This paper lays the groundwork for an objective signal classification approach based on a general physical model of a damped harmonic oscillator. Using this concept, critical parameters that effectively subdivide percussion signals into three main groups, historically known as "tympanic," "resonant," and "dull," are identified, opening the possibility for automated diagnostics of air/liquid inclusions in the thorax and abdomen. The key role of damping in forming the character of the percussion signal is investigated using a 3D thorax phantom. The contribution of the abdominal component into the complex multimode spectrum of chest percussion signals is demonstrated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".