Monitoring respiratory rate based on tracheal sounds. First experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to develop a non-invasive method for continuously monitoring respiratory rate (RR) based on tracheal sounds. 25 volunteers and 36 patients with chronic pulmonary diseases were enrolled in a clinical study. Tracheal sounds were acquired using a contact piezoelectric sensor placed on the examinee's throat and analyzed using a combined investigation of the sound envelope and frequency content. RR estimates were compared to reference measurements taken from a pneumotachometer coupled to a face mask worn by the examinee. RR was also manually counted by a respiratory technician. Two types of breathing (mouth and nose) and three different positions were studied (fowler, semi-fowler and supine). RR estimated in volunteers had a success rate (SR) of 96%, a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.99 and a standard error of the estimate (SEE) of 0.56. The RR estimated in patients was comparable or slightly better (SR = 85%, r = 0.93 and SEE = 1.49) than those obtained by manual count (SR = 82%, r = 0.91, SEE = 1.58), which is the method widely used in clinical settings. No significant difference in the capacity to estimate RR was found related to posture and breathing type, making this method useful for continuous monitoring.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".