High-throughput digital cough recording on a university campus: A SARS-CoV-2-negative curated open database and operational template for acoustic screening of respiratory diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Respiratory illnesses have information-rich acoustic biomarkers, such as cough, that can potentially play an important role in screening populations for disease risk. To realize that potential, datasets of paired acoustic-clinical samples are needed for the development and validation of acoustic screening models, and protocols for collecting acoustic samples must be efficient and safe. We collected cough acoustic signatures at a high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 testing site on a college campus. Here, we share logistical details and the dataset of acoustic cough signatures paired with the gold standard in SARS-CoV-2 testing of SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences using qRT-PCR. Methods: Cough recordings were collected in winter-spring 2021 at a rural residential college (Sewanee, TN, USA), where approximately 2000 students were tested for SARS-CoV-2 on a weekly basis. Cough collection was managed by student volunteers using custom software. Results: 4302 coughs were recorded from 960 participants over 11 weeks. All coughs were COVID-19 negative. Approximately 30 s were required to check-in a participant and collect their cough. Conclusion: The value of acoustic screening tools depends upon our ability to develop and implement them reliably and quickly. For that to happen, high-quality datasets and logistical insights must be collected and shared on an ongoing basis.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".