MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135130285 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2004.836525

Detection of Respiratory Sounds at the External Ear

2004· article· en· W2135130285 on OpenAlexaff
Gary A. Pressler, J.P. Mansfield, Hans Pasterkamp, George R. Wodicka

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaManitoba Health
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMouthpieceAcousticsMicrophoneNoise (video)MedicineMaterials sciencePhysicsSound pressureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several clinical and ambulatory settings necessitate respiratory monitoring without a mouthpiece or facemask. Several studies have demonstrated the utility of breathing sound measurements performed on the chest or neck to detect airflow. However, there are limitations to skin surface measurements, including susceptibility to external noise and transducer motion. Thus, this two-part study investigated a novel location for breathing sound measurements: the external ear. The first study investigated characteristics of sound transmission from the oropharynx to the external ear in 19 adults (nine males). Broadband noise was directed into the oropharynx through a tube and mouthpiece and measured indirectly via an accelerometer affixed to the cheek. Resultant transmission to the external ear was measured with a microphone inserted into an earplug that provided acoustic isolation from ambient noise. Near-unity coherence estimates (> 0.9) between the sounds recorded at the external ear and the oropharynx were observed up to approximately 800 Hz, indicating a low-frequency region of preferred transmission. In the second study, each of 20 subjects (nine males) breathed through a pneumotachograph at targeted shallow (3.0 mL/s/kg) and tidal (7.5 mL/s/kg) flows normalized to body mass, and the resulting sounds were recorded at the external ear. Recordings during breath hold measured background noise. Shallow and tidal expiratory flows, respectively, produced signal-plus-noise-to-noise [(S + N)/N] ratios of 6.7 +/- 4.1 dB and 14.0 +/- 5.3 dB (mean +/- standard deviation) across all subjects between 150 and 300 Hz. Concurrent inspiration demonstrated (S + N)/N ratios of 6.6 +/- 3.9 dB and 14.9 +/- 6.3 dB. Thus, the external ear shows promise as an anatomic site to detect and monitor breathing in a relatively noninvasive and unobtrusive manner.

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)0.000
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 score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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