Advancements in Methods and Camera-Based Sensors for the Quantification of Respiration
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment of respiratory function allows early detection of potential disorders in the respiratory system and provides useful information for medical management. There is a wide range of applications for breathing assessment, from measurement systems in a clinical environment to applications involving athletes. Many studies on pulmonary function testing systems and breath monitoring have been conducted over the past few decades, and their results have the potential to broadly impact clinical practice. However, most of these works require physical contact with the patient to produce accurate and reliable measures of the respiratory function. There is still a significant shortcoming of non-contact measuring systems in their ability to fit into the clinical environment. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the current advances and systems in respiratory function assessment, particularly camera-based systems. A classification of the applicable research works is presented according to their techniques and recorded/quantified respiration parameters. In addition, the current solutions are discussed with regards to their direct applicability in different settings, such as clinical or home settings, highlighting their specific strengths and limitations in the different environments.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 it