MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162882562 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2008.4649276

Comparison of flow-sound relationship for different features of tracheal sound

2008· article· en· W2162882562 on OpenAlexaff
Azadeh Yadollahi, Zahra Moussavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogarithmFlow (mathematics)ExpirationFeature (linguistics)Linear modelMathematicsSound (geography)AcousticsBioacousticsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceStatisticsMathematical analysisPhysicsRespiratory systemMedicineGeometryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, respiratory flow estimation using tracheal sounds has received considerable attention. In this paper, four different features of tracheal sound are investigated and their relationships with flow at different target flow rates are examined during inspiration and expiration phases. The features include average power (AvgPwr), logarithm of the variance (LogVar), logarithm of the range (LogRng) and logarithm of the envelop (LogEnv) of tracheal sound. For each feature a linear model is fitted to the flow and the feature. The results show that LogVar is the best feature to describe flow-sound relationship with a linear model, while the slope of the linear model using AvgPwr shows the largest deviation from a line with changes in target flow rates. Also, the distance from origin of the linear model using any feature changes linearly with variations of target flow.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207