Adventitious and Normal Lung Sounds in the General Population: Comparison of Standardized and Spontaneous Breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For clinical practice and research, it would be easier to auscultate lung sounds without simultaneously measuring air flow. This study evaluated whether the presence of adventitious lung sounds and the characteristics of normal lung sounds differ between spontaneous and standardized breathing in a general population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 116 subjects (53.4% female, mean age 59.2 ± 11.6 y). The subjects reported heart/lung diseases and the degree of dyspnea, and spirometry was carried out. Lung sounds were recorded at 6 chest locations, first during spontaneous breathing and then during breathing with a standardized air flow of 1.5 L/s. Crackles and wheezes were identified by 4 observers. Intensity and frequency of normal lung sounds in the 100–2,000 Hz band were determined. RESULTS: Inspiratory crackles were heard in 19 subjects (16.4%) during spontaneous breathing and in 18 subjects during standardized breathing (15.5%). Only 5 subjects were identified with both methods (kappa = 0.13). Expiratory wheezes were heard in 18 subjects (15.5%) during spontaneous breathing and in 23 subjects during standardized breathing (19.8%). Nine subjects were identified with both methods (kappa = 0.32). The mean intensity and median frequency of normal lung sounds were significantly higher during standardized breathing than during spontaneous breathing, both at inspiration (23.1 dB vs 20.1 dB and 391.6 Hz vs 367.3 Hz) and expiration (20 dB vs17.6 dB and 376.3 Hz vs 355 Hz). Dyspnea was more frequently reported when expiratory wheezes were present, but this association was only statistically significant during standardized breathing ( P = .03). During spontaneous breathing, increased mean intensity and median frequency during expiration were associated with an increased reporting of heart/lung diseases ( P = .02 and P = .01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The mode of breathing had an impact on both adventitious and normal lung sounds. Although adventitious sounds were found with similar frequency between the modes of breathing, less than half of these subjects were identified with both methods. Spontaneous breathing was not inferior to standardized breathing in reflecting lung disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".