The Utility of Real-Time Remote Auscultation Using a Bluetooth-Connected Electronic Stethoscope: Open-Label Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The urgent need for telemedicine has become clear in the COVID-19 pandemic. To facilitate telemedicine, the development and improvement of remote examination systems are required. A system combining an electronic stethoscope and Bluetooth connectivity is a promising option for remote auscultation in clinics and hospitals. However, the utility of such systems remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess the utility of real-time auscultation using a Bluetooth-connected electronic stethoscope compared to that of classical auscultation, using lung and cardiology patient simulators. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial including senior residents and faculty in the department of general internal medicine of a university hospital. The only exclusion criterion was a refusal to participate. This study consisted of 2 parts: lung auscultation and cardiac auscultation. Each part contained a tutorial session and a test session. All participants attended a tutorial session, in which they listened to 15 sounds on the simulator using a classic stethoscope and were told the correct classification. Thereafter, participants were randomly assigned to either the real-time remote auscultation group (intervention group) or the classical auscultation group (control group) for test sessions. In the test sessions, participants had to classify a series of 10 lung sounds and 10 cardiac sounds, depending on the study part. The intervention group listened to the sounds remotely using the electronic stethoscope, a Bluetooth transmitter, and a wireless, noise-canceling, stereo headset. The control group listened to the sounds directly using a traditional stethoscope. The primary outcome was the test score, and the secondary outcomes were the rates of correct answers for each sound. RESULTS: In total, 20 participants were included. There were no differences in age, sex, and years from graduation between the 2 groups in each part. The overall test score of lung auscultation in the intervention group (80/110, 72.7%) was not different from that in the control group (71/90, 78.9%; P=.32). The only lung sound for which the correct answer rate differed between groups was that of pleural friction rubs (P=.03); it was lower in the intervention group (3/11, 27%) than in the control group (7/9, 78%). The overall test score for cardiac auscultation in the intervention group (50/60, 83.3%) was not different from that in the control group (119/140, 85.0%; P=.77). There was no cardiac sound for which the correct answer rate differed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of a real-time remote auscultation system using a Bluetooth-connected electronic stethoscope was comparable to that of direct auscultation using a classic stethoscope, except for classification of pleural friction rubs. This means that most of the real world's essential cardiopulmonary sounds could be classified by a real-time remote auscultation system using a Bluetooth-connected electronic stethoscope. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000040828; https://tinyurl.com/r24j2p6s and UMIN-CTR UMIN000041601; https://tinyurl.com/bsax3j5f.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".