MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152402032 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5332870

Acoustic obstructive sleep apnea detection

2009· article· en· W2152402032 on OpenAlexaff
Azadeh Yadollahi, Zahra Moussavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstructive sleep apneaApneaPolysomnographySleep apneaComputer scienceBreathingArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionAlgorithmMedicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common respiratory disorder during sleep, in which the airways are collapsed and impair the respiration. Apnea is s cessation of airflow to the lungs which lasts at least for 10s. The current gold standard method for OSA assessment is full night polysomnography (PSG); however, its high cost, inconvenience for patients and immobility have persuaded researchers to seek simple and portable devices to detect OSA. In this paper, we report on developing a new system for OSA detection and monitoring, which only requires two data channels: tracheal breathing sounds and the blood oxygen saturation level (S(a)O(2)). A fully automated method was developed that uses the energy of breathing sounds signals to segment the signals into sound and silent segments. Then, the sound segments are classified into breath, snore (if exists) and noise segments. The S(a)O(2) signal is analyzed to find the rises and drops in the S(a)O(2) signal. Finally, a fuzzy algorithm was developed to use this information and detect apnea and hypopnea events. The method was evaluated on the data of 40 patients simultaneously with full night PSG study, and the results were compared with those of the PSG. The results show high correlation (96%) between our system and PSG. Also, the method has been found to have sensitivity and specificity values of more than 90% in differentiating simple snorers from OSA patients.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations73
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207