MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533466077 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2004.1404069

Automated classification of swallowing and breadth sounds

2005· article· en· W2533466077 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Aboofazeli, Zahra Moussavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwallowingComputer scienceFeature extractionSample entropySpeech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)SpectrogramArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to develop an automated and objective method to separate swallowing sounds from breath sounds. Swallowing sound detection can be utilized as part of a system for swallowing mechanism assessment and diagnosis of swallowing dysfunction (dysphagia) by acoustical means. In this study, an algorithm based on multilayer feed forward neural networks is proposed for decomposition of tracheal sound into swallowing and respiratory segments. Among many features examined, root-mean-square of the signal, the average power of the signal over 150-450 Hz and waveform fractal dimension were selected features applied to the neural network as inputs. Findings from previous studies about temporal and durational patterns of swallowing and respiration were used in a smart algorithm for further identification of the swallow and breath segments. The proposed method was applied to 18 tracheal sound recordings of 7 healthy subjects (ages 13-30 years, 4 males). The results were validated manually by visual inspection using airflow measurement and spectrogram of the sounds and auditory means. The algorithm was able to detect 91.7% of swallows correctly. The average of missed swallows and average of false detection were 8.3% and 9.5%, respectively. With additional preprocessing and post processing, the proposed method may be used for automated extraction of swallowing sounds from breath sounds in healthy and dysphagic individuals.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207