MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283753063 · doi:10.2147/nss.s360970

Respiratory Motion and Airflow Estimation During Sleep Using Tracheal Movement and Sound

2022· article· en· W4283753063 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNature and Science of Sleep · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalNorth Toronto Eye CareToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAirflowMovement (music)Sound (geography)Respiratory systemAcousticsMotion (physics)Sleep (system call)AudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomyArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Due to lack of access and high cost of polysomnography, portable sleep apnea testing has been developed to diagnose sleep apnea. Despite being less expensive, and having fewer sensors and reasonable accuracy in identifying sleep apnea, such devices can be less accurate than polysomnography in detecting apneas/hypopneas. To increase the accuracy of apnea/hypopnea detection, an accurate airflow estimation is required. However, current airflow measurement techniques employed in portable devices are inconvenient and subject to displacement during sleep. In this study, algorithms were developed to estimate respiratory motion and airflow using tracheo-sternal motion and tracheal sounds. Patients and Methods: Adults referred for polysomnography were included. Simultaneous to polysomnography, a patch device with an embedded 3-dimensional accelerometer and microphone was affixed to the suprasternal notch to record tracheo-sternal motion and tracheal sounds, respectively. Tracheo-sternal motion was used to train two mathematical models for estimating changes in respiratory motion and airflow compared to simultaneously measured thoracoabdominal motion and nasal pressure from polysomnography. The amplitude of the estimated airflow was then adjusted by the tracheal sound envelope in segments with unstable breathing. Results: Two hundred and fifty-two subjects participated in this study. Overall, the algorithms provided highly accurate estimates of changes in respiratory motion and airflow with mean square errors (MSE) of 3.58 ± 0.82% and 2.82 ± 0.71%, respectively, compared to polysomnographic signals. The estimated motion and airflow from the patch signals detected apneas and hypopneas scored on polysomnography in 63.9% and 88.3% of cases, respectively. Conclusion: This study presents algorithms to accurately estimate changes in respiratory motion and airflow, which provides the ability to detect respiratory events during sleep. Our study suggests that such a simple and convenient method could be used for portable monitoring to detect sleep apnea. Further studies will be required to test this possibility.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it