MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vocalization removal for improved automatic segmentation of dual-axis swallowing accelerometry signals

2010· article· en· W2111150987 on OpenAlexaff
Ervin Sejdić, Tiago H. Falk, Catriona M. Steele, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationChinSwallowingArtificial intelligenceAccelerometerComputer scienceComputer visionSIGNAL (programming language)Pattern recognition (psychology)Signal processingSpeech recognitionDigital signal processingMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic segmentation of dual-axis swallowing accelerometry signals can be severely affected by strong vocalizations. In this paper, a method based on periodicity detection is proposed to detect and remove such vocalizations. Periodic signal components are detected using conventional speech processing techniques and information from both axes are combined to improve vocalization detection accuracy. Experiments with 408 healthy subjects performing dry, wet, and wet chin tuck swallows show that the proposed method attains an average 95.3% sensitivity and 96.3% specificity. When applied in conjunction with an automatic segmentation algorithm, it is observed that segmentation accuracy improves by approximately 55%. These results encourage further development of medical devices for the detection of swallowing difficulties.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207