Computer-aided auscultation of murmurs in children: evaluation of commercially available software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart murmurs are common in children and may represent congenital or acquired cardiac pathology. Auscultation is challenging and many primary-care physicians lack the skill to differentiate innocent from pathologic murmurs. We sought to determine whether computer-aided auscultation (CardioscanTM) identifies which children require referral to a cardiologist. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled children aged between 0 and 17 years with a murmur, innocent or pathologic, being evaluated in a tertiary-care cardiology clinic. Children being evaluated for the first time and patients with known cardiac pathology were eligible. We excluded children who had undergone cardiac surgery previously or were unable to sit still for auscultation. CardioscanTM auscultation was performed in a quiet room with the subject in the supine position. The sensitivity and specificity of a potentially pathologic murmur designation by CardioscanTM - that is, requiring referral - was determined using echocardiography as the reference standard. RESULTS: We enrolled 126 subjects (44% female) with a median age of 1.7 years, with 93 (74%) having cardiac pathology. The sensitivity and specificity of a potentially pathologic murmur determination by CardioscanTM for identification of cardiac pathology were 83.9 and 30.3%, respectively, versus 75.0 and 71.4%, respectively, when limited to subjects with a heart rate of 50-120 beats per minute. The combination of a CardioscanTM potentially pathologic murmur designation or an abnormal electrocardiogram improved sensitivity to 93.5%, with no haemodynamically significant lesions missed. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity of CardioscanTM when interpreted in conjunction with an abnormal electrocardiogram was high, although specificity was poor. Re-evaluation of computer-aided auscultation will remain necessary as advances in this technology become available.
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 | 0.003 | 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".