Ultrasound Based Respiratory Monitoring Evaluation Under Human Body Motions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel pulmonary monitoring system based on diaphragm wall motion tracking is proposed. Diaphragm motions are measured by a designed ultrasound sensory system with only one ultrasound PZT5 piezo transducer. We evaluate the accuracy and robustness of this technique in monitoring the diaphragmatic function and its contribution to respiratory workload. The ultrasound sensor is placed in the zone of apposition (ZOA). Measurements are referenced to a SPR-BTA commercial spirometer. In this study, we also evaluate inertial and photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors as two alternative methods in this area. All tests are done in non-stationary human body situation to evaluate the usage of sensors in a real life. According to the diaphragm motion tracking of the proposed method, the system is extremely insensitive to motion artifacts. Promising results were obtained for the proposed system from four different tests with an average sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 73.5% in respiration detection, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".