Longitudinal passive cough monitoring and its implications for detecting changes in clinical status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research question: What is the impact of the duration of cough monitoring on its accuracy in detecting changes in the cough frequency? Materials and methods: This is a statistical analysis of a prospective cohort study. Participants were recruited in the city of Pamplona (Northern Spain), and their cough frequency was passively monitored using smartphone-based acoustic artificial intelligence software. Differences in cough frequency were compared using a one-tailed Mann-Whitney U test and a randomisation routine to simulate 24-h monitoring. Results: 616 participants were monitored for an aggregated duration of over 9 person-years and registered 62 325 coughs. This empiric analysis found that an individual's cough patterns are stochastic, following a binomial distribution. When compared to continuous monitoring, limiting observation to 24 h can lead to inaccurate estimates of change in cough frequency, particularly in persons with low or small changes in rate. Interpretation: Detecting changes in an individual's rate of coughing is complicated by significant stochastic variability within and between days. Assessing change based solely on intermittent sampling, including 24-h, can be misleading. This is particularly problematic in detecting small changes in individuals who have a low rate and/or high variance in cough pattern.
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 | 0.079 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".