MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163844873 · doi:10.1109/wescan.1995.493973

A comparison of neural network models for wheeze detection

2002· article· en· W2163844873 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Edward Forkheim, David Scuse, Hans Pasterkamp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceWheezeSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)SIGNAL (programming language)Fast Fourier transformProcess (computing)Fourier transformAlgorithmMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis of the use of neural networks to process lung sounds and identify wheezes is presented. Both raw signal data and Fourier transform data were used to train and test a series of neural networks. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the neural networks and their ability to detect wheezes in isolated lung sound segments.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207