Evaluation of Respiratory Sounds Using Image-Based Approaches for Health Measurement Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Goal:</i> The evaluation of respiratory events using audio sensing in an at-home setting can be indicative of worsening health conditions. This paper investigates the use of image-based transfer learning applied to five audio visualizations to evaluate three classification tasks (C1: wet vs. dry vs. whooping cough vs. restricted breathing; C2: wet vs. dry cough; C3: cough vs. restricted breathing). <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Methods:</i> The five visualizations (linear spectrogram, logarithmic spectrogram, Mel-spectrogram, wavelet scalograms, and aggregate images) are applied to a pre-trained AlexNet image classifier for all tasks. <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results:</i> The aggregate image-based classifier achieved the highest overall performance across all tasks with C1, C2, and C3 having testing accuracies of 0.88, 0.88, and 0.91 respectively. However, the Mel-spectrogram method had the highest testing accuracy (0.94) for C2. <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusions:</i> The classification of respiratory events using aggregate image inputs to transfer learning approaches may help healthcare professionals by providing information that would otherwise be unavailable to them.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".