Relative tidal volume and respiratory airflow estimation using tracheal sound and movement during sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Airflow is the reference signal to assess sleep respiratory disorders, such as sleep apnea. Previous studies estimated airflow using tracheal sounds in short segments with specific airflow rates, while requiring calibration or a few breaths for tuning the relationship between sound energy and airflow. Airflow−sound relationship can change by posture, sleep stage and airflow rate or tidal volume. We investigated the possibility of estimating surrogates of tidal volume without calibration in the adult sleep apnea population using tracheal sounds and movements. Two surrogates of tidal volume: thoracoabdominal range of sum movement and airflow level were estimated. Linear regression was used to estimate thoracoabdominal range of sum movement from sound energy and the range of movements. The sound energy lower envelope was found to correlate with airflow level. The agreement between reference and estimated signals was assessed by repeated‐measure correlation analysis. The estimated tidal volumes were used to estimate the airflow signal. Sixty‐one participants (30 females, age: 51 ± 16 years, body mass index: 29.5 ± 6.4 kg m −2 , and apnoea−hypopnea index: 20.2 ± 21.2) were included. Reference and estimated thoracoabdominal range of sum movement of whole night data were significantly correlated with the reference signal extracted from polysomnography (r = 0.5 ± 0.06). Similarly, significant correlations (r = 0.3 ± 0.05) were found for airflow level. Significant differences in estimated surrogates of tidal volume were found between normal breathing and apnea/hypopnea. Surrogate of airflow can be extracted from tracheal sounds and movements, which can be used for assessing the severity of sleep apnea and even phenotyping sleep apnea patients based on the estimated airflow shape.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".