MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119559151 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2006.873696

Design, construction, and evaluation of a bioacoustic transducer testing (BATT) system for respiratory sounds

2006· article· en· W2119559151 on OpenAlexaff
Steve S. Kraman, Gary A. Pressler, Hans Pasterkamp, George R. Wodicka

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioacousticsTransducerAcousticsEngineeringComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many different transducers are employed for recording respiratory sounds including accelerometers and microphones in couplers. However, there is no standard lung sound transducer or any device to compare transducers so that measurements from different laboratories can be determined to be of physiologic origin rather than technical artifacts of the transducers. To address this problem, we designed and constructed a prototype of a device that can be used to compare accelerometers, microphones enclosed in couplers, and stethoscopes. The prototype device consists of a rigid chamber containing a loudspeaker that opens to an antechamber covered by a viscoelastic material with mechanical properties similar to human skin and subcutaneous tissue. When driven by a white noise source, we found the sound output at the surface to be useful to comparatively evaluate sensors between 100 and 1200 Hz where lung sounds have most of their spectral energy. We compared the viscoelastic layer to similar thicknesses of fresh meat and fat and found them to produce similar acoustic spectra. This device allows air-coupled transducers, accelerometers, and stethoscopes used in respiratory sounds measurements to be compared under physical conditions similar to their intended use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207