Cardiac Auscultation Using Smartphones: Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac auscultation is a cost-effective, noninvasive screening tool that can provide information about cardiovascular hemodynamics and disease. However, with advances in imaging and laboratory tests, the importance of cardiac auscultation is less appreciated in clinical practice. The widespread use of smartphones provides opportunities for nonmedical expert users to perform self-examination before hospital visits. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the feasibility of cardiac auscultation using smartphones with no add-on devices for use at the prehospital stage. METHODS: We performed a pilot study of patients with normal and pathologic heart sounds. Heart sounds were recorded on the skin of the chest wall using 3 smartphones: the Samsung Galaxy S5 and Galaxy S6, and the LG G3. Recorded heart sounds were processed and classified by a diagnostic algorithm using convolutional neural networks. We assessed diagnostic accuracy, as well as sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. RESULTS: A total of 46 participants underwent heart sound recording. After audio file processing, 30 of 46 (65%) heart sounds were proven interpretable. Atrial fibrillation and diastolic murmur were significantly associated with failure to acquire interpretable heart sounds. The diagnostic algorithm classified the heart sounds into the correct category with high accuracy: Galaxy S5, 90% (95% CI 73%-98%); Galaxy S6, 87% (95% CI 69%-96%); and LG G3, 90% (95% CI 73%-98%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were also acceptable for the 3 devices. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac auscultation using smartphones was feasible. Discrimination using convolutional neural networks yielded high diagnostic accuracy. However, using the built-in microphones alone, the acquisition of reproducible and interpretable heart sounds was still a major challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03273803; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03273803 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6x6g1fHIu).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".