A Robust Method for Estimating Respiratory Flow Using Tracheal Sounds Entropy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between respiratory sounds and flow is of great interest for researchers and physicians due to its diagnostic potentials. Due to difficulties and inaccuracy of most of the flow measurement techniques, several researchers have attempted to estimate flow from respiratory sounds. However, all of the proposed methods heavily depend on the availability of different rates of flow for calibrating the model, which makes their use limited by a large degree. In this paper, a robust and novel method for estimating flow using entropy of the band pass filtered tracheal sounds is proposed. The proposed method is novel in terms of being independent of the flow rate chosen for calibration; it requires only one breath for calibration and can estimate any flow rate even out of the range of calibration flow. After removing the effects of heart sounds (which distort the low-frequency components of tracheal sounds) on the calculated entropy of the tracheal sounds, the performance of the method at different frequency ranges were investigated. Also, the performance of the proposed method was tested using 6 different segment sizes for entropy calculation and the best segment sizes during inspiration and expiration were found. The method was tested on data of 10 healthy subjects at five different flow rates. The overall estimation error was found to be 8.3 +/- 2.8% and 9.6 +/- 2.8% for inspiration and expiration phases, respectively.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it