MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099942783 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2005.1615829

Estimation of Respiratory Rate and Heart Rate During Treadmill Tests Using Acoustic Sensor

2005· article· en· W2099942783 on OpenAlexaff
B. Popov, G. Sierra, V. Telfort, Ramesh K. Agarwal, V. Lanzo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTreadmillAcousticsRespiratory rateRespiratory systemCardiologyHeart rateThroatMathematicsAudiologySpeech recognitionInternal medicineComputer scienceSurgeryBlood pressurePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to test the robustness of an acoustic method to estimate respiratory rates (RR) during treadmill test. The accuracy was assessed by the comparison with simultaneous estimates from a capnograph, using as a common reference a pneumotachometer. Eight subjects without any pulmonary disease were enrolled. Tracheal sounds were acquired using a contact piezoelectric sensor placed on the subject's throat and analyzed using a combined investigation of the sound envelope and frequency content. The capnograph and pneumotachometer were coupled to a face mask worn by the subjects. There was a strong linear correlation between all three methods (r2ranged from 0.8 to 0.87), and the SEE ranged from 1.97 to 2.36. As a conclusion, the accuracy of the respiratory rate estimated from tracheal sounds on adult subjects during treadmill stress test was comparable to the accuracy of a commercial capnograph. The heart rate (HR) estimates can also be derived from carotid pulse using the same single sensor placed on the subject's throat. Compared to the pulse oximeter the results show an agreement of acoustic method with r2= 0.76 and SEE = 3.51

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207