MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798170158

Automated Algorithm for Swallowing Sound Detection

2017· article· en· W2798170158 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwallowingComputer scienceDysphagiaArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmSpeech recognitionMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the automated detection of swallowing sounds for normal subjects. A normal swallowing sound is characterized by three phases including oral, pharyngeal and esophageal where complications lead to swallowing disorder or dysphagia. Current gold standard testing for this abnormality is videofluorography, an x-ray based procedure with detrimental radiation side effects. New non-invasive techniques are necessarily explored to help assess the performance of the swallowing mechanism. Recent developed studies in acoustical airflow estimation indicate the need to detect and extract swallowing segments from sound signals. Extraction is currently a manual process, both subjective and time-consuming. Thus, an automated, objective and quick method is developed in the form of a “smart” algorithm with the ability to make decisions like trained technicians and physicians. Three sound signal features were explored to assist in the classification process (AR- coefficients, RMS values and average power). Utilizing the features, classification sequences were produced for six healthy subjects swallowing sounds. The results were compared with known values (acquired through visual and auditory means). RMS features in combination with the “smart” code yield the lowest error, on average 20.7 ± 4.6%. Future studies include testing variations of smart algorithm code in order to create a robust algorithm. Also, future work includes varying test subject ages, test media (bolus textures) and creating a program-user interface for decision-making assistance. Keywords: swallowing, dysphagia, spectrogram, RMS, automated detection.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.430
Teacher spread0.373 · 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