Acoustic surveillance for respiratory diseases: a prospective analysis of cough trends using artificial intelligence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Syndromic surveillance for respiratory disease is limited by an inability to monitor its protean manifestation, cough. Advances in artificial intelligence provide the ability to passively monitor cough at individual and community levels. We hypothesized that changes in the aggregate number of coughs recorded among a sample could serve as a lead indicator for population incidence of respiratory diseases, particularly that of COVID-19. We enrolled over 900 people from the city of Pamplona (Spain) between 2020 and 2021 and used artificial intelligence cough detection software to monitor their cough. We collected nine person-years of cough aggregated data. Coughs per hour surged around the time cohort subjects sought medical care. There was a weak temporal correlation between aggregated coughs and the incidence of COVID-19 in the local population. We propose that a clearer correlation with COVID-19 incidence could be achieved with better penetration and compliance with cough monitoring.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".