Novel Coronavirus Cough Database: NoCoCoDa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current pandemic associated with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) presents a new area of research with its own set of challenges. Creating unobtrusive remote monitoring tools for medical professionals that may aid in diagnosis, monitoring and contact tracing could lead to more efficient and accurate treatments, especially in this time of physical distancing. Audio based sensing methods can address this by measuring the frequency, severity and characteristics of the COVID-19 cough. However, the feasibility of accumulating coughs directly from patients is low in the short term. This article introduces a novel database (NoCoCoDa), which contains COVID-19 cough events obtained through public media interviews with COVID-19 patients, as an interim solution. After manual segmentation of the interviews, a total of 73 individual cough events were extracted and cough phase annotation was performed. Furthermore, the COVID-19 cough is typically dry but can present as a more productive cough in severe cases. Therefore, an investigation of cough sub-type (productive vs. dry) of the NoCoCoDa was performed using methods previously published by our research group. Most of the NoCoCoDa cough events were recorded either during or after a severe period of the disease, which is supported by the fact that 77% of the COVID-19 coughs were classified as productive based on our previous work. The NoCoCoDa is designed to be used for rapid exploration and algorithm development, which can then be applied to more extensive datasets and potentially real time applications. The NoCoCoDa is available for free to the research community upon request.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".