Detection of Heart Sounds in Children with and without Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension―Daubechies Wavelets Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automatic detection of the 1st (S1) and 2nd (S2) heart sounds is difficult, and existing algorithms are imprecise. We sought to develop a wavelet-based algorithm for the detection of S1 and S2 in children with and without pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). METHOD: Heart sounds were recorded at the second left intercostal space and the cardiac apex with a digital stethoscope simultaneously with pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP). We developed a Daubechies wavelet algorithm for the automatic detection of S1 and S2 using the wavelet coefficient 'D6' based on power spectral analysis. We compared our algorithm with four other Daubechies wavelet-based algorithms published by Liang, Kumar, Wang, and Zhong. We annotated S1 and S2 from an audiovisual examination of the phonocardiographic tracing by two trained cardiologists and the observation that in all subjects systole was shorter than diastole. RESULTS: We studied 22 subjects (9 males and 13 females, median age 6 years, range 0.25-19). Eleven subjects had a mean PAP < 25 mmHg. Eleven subjects had PAH with a mean PAP ≥ 25 mmHg. All subjects had a pulmonary artery wedge pressure ≤ 15 mmHg. The sensitivity (SE) and positive predictivity (+P) of our algorithm were 70% and 68%, respectively. In comparison, the SE and +P of Liang were 59% and 42%, Kumar 19% and 12%, Wang 50% and 45%, and Zhong 43% and 53%, respectively. Our algorithm demonstrated robustness and outperformed the other methods up to a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 10 dB. For all algorithms, detection errors arose from low-amplitude peaks, fast heart rates, low signal-to-noise ratio, and fixed thresholds. CONCLUSION: Our algorithm for the detection of S1 and S2 improves the performance of existing Daubechies-based algorithms and justifies the use of the wavelet coefficient 'D6' through power spectral analysis. Also, the robustness despite ambient noise may improve real world clinical performance.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".