Analysis of Clinical Percussion Signals Using Matching Pursuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical percussion is a method of eliciting sounds from the body by tapping with either a percussion hammer or fingers to determine the area under the perused is air filled, fluid filled, or solid, and is used in clinical examinations to assess the condition of the thorax or abdomen. Successful diagnosis today is still highly subjective and dependent's on physician skill, experience and require quite surrounding areas. An automated system capable of delivering standardized percussion analysis would remove these limitations on the technique and allow for its usage by those without such specialized training and years of necessary experience. For this to be possible, efficient and informative signal processing algorithms must be employed. In this investigation, clinical percussions from healthy volunteers taken by trained medical professionals were analysed via the matching pursuit (MP) algorithm. Various types of possible dictionaries are discussed comparing their efficiency and convergence behaviour. Noise filtering methods are discussed and a noise reduction method based on MP analysis results is presented.MP is also compared to other methods for representing clinical percussions with regards to informativeness and efficiency. MP is (log) which is more efficient than current methods which have a complexity of at least ( 3 ).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".