A Radial Basis Function Classifier for Pediatric Aspiration Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silent aspiration presents a serious health issue for children with dysphagia. To date, there is no satisfactory means of detecting aspiration in the home or community. In an effort to design a practical device that could offer reliability, non-invasiveness, portability, and easy usability, radial basis functions based on cervical accelerometry signals were investigated. Vibration signals associated with safe swallows and aspirations, both identified via videofluoroscopy, were collected from over 100 children with neurologically-based dysphagia using a single-axis accelerometer. Three time-domain discriminatory mathematical features were extracted from the accelerometry signals. An exhaustive set of all possible combinations of the features was investigated in the design of radial basis function classifiers. The feature pairing of dispersion ratio and normality achieved an accuracy of 81.03 +/- 5.78%, a false negative rate of 9.06 +/- 4.84%, and a false positive rate of 9.91 +/- 5.03% for aspiration detection. The proposed classifier can be easily implemented in a hand-held device.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".