Acoustic diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension: automated speech- recognition-inspired classification algorithm outperforms physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that an automated speech- recognition-inspired classification algorithm could differentiate between the heart sounds in subjects with and without pulmonary hypertension (PH) and outperform physicians. Heart sounds, electrocardiograms, and mean pulmonary artery pressures (mPAp) were recorded simultaneously. Heart sound recordings were digitized to train and test speech-recognition-inspired classification algorithms. We used mel-frequency cepstral coefficients to extract features from the heart sounds. Gaussian-mixture models classified the features as PH (mPAp ≥ 25 mmHg) or normal (mPAp < 25 mmHg). Physicians blinded to patient data listened to the same heart sound recordings and attempted a diagnosis. We studied 164 subjects: 86 with mPAp ≥ 25 mmHg (mPAp 41 ± 12 mmHg) and 78 with mPAp < 25 mmHg (mPAp 17 ± 5 mmHg) (p < 0.005). The correct diagnostic rate of the automated speech-recognition-inspired algorithm was 74% compared to 56% by physicians (p = 0.005). The false positive rate for the algorithm was 34% versus 50% (p = 0.04) for clinicians. The false negative rate for the algorithm was 23% and 68% (p = 0.0002) for physicians. We developed an automated speech-recognition-inspired classification algorithm for the acoustic diagnosis of PH that outperforms physicians that could be used to screen for PH and encourage earlier specialist referral.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".