MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805238866

Electronic Stethoscope for eHealth and Telemedicine

2010· article· de· W2805238866 on OpenAlexaff
Christian McMehan, P.P.M. So, Kin Fun Li, Gordon Jasechko, Martin Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2010
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsIsland HealthUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStethoscopeTelemedicineeHealthComputer scienceThe InternetHeart soundsTelecommunicationsHealth careMedicineWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of ehealth and telemedicine depend on the development of advanced medical equipment that can streamline the tasks of medical data collection, processing and archiving. Audio signals detected by stethoscopes are some of the basic data used by medical doctors on a daily basis but there is no systematic approach to process, transmit and archive the collected data digitally. This may due to the fact that the electronic stethoscopes are still relatively expensive. General use of electronic stethoscope by physicians will not happen until the cost is dropped to an “affordable” level and/or the stethoscope has additional features and capabilities not found in current versions. Affordable electronic stethoscopes enable all doctors to collect and archive acoustic medical signal easily. Furthermore, a feature-laden device may also be used by non-medical specialists to collect data remotely for medical doctors. Also, a “user friendly” version of the electronic stethoscope that elderlies may easily use to transmit their own heart and lung audio signals to their family physicians via the telephone or Internet would be a good tool for telemedicine. We are investigating the desirable features and requirements, and formulating the specification for an affordable electronic stethoscope for ehealth and telemedicine. Issues of data collection, pre-processing, transmission, and storage, as well as future possible expansion to accommodate additional modules for further data post-processing and integration with other electronic medical devices, are considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207