Optical Monitoring of Breathing Patterns and Tissue Oxygenation: A Potential Application in COVID-19 Screening and Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The worldwide outbreak of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has highlighted the need for a screening and monitoring system for infectious respiratory diseases in the acute and chronic phase. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of using a wearable near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) sensor to collect respiratory signals and distinguish between normal and simulated pathological breathing. Twenty-one healthy adults participated in an experiment that examined five separate breathing conditions. Respiratory signals were collected with a continuous-wave NIRS sensor (PortaLite, Artinis Medical Systems) affixed over the sternal manubrium. Following a three-minute baseline, participants began five minutes of imposed difficult breathing using a respiratory trainer. After a five minute recovery period, participants began five minutes of imposed rapid and shallow breathing. The study concluded with five additional minutes of regular breathing. NIRS signals were analyzed using a machine learning model to distinguish between normal and simulated pathological breathing. Three features: breathing interval, breathing depth, and O2Hb signal amplitude were extracted from the NIRS data and, when used together, resulted in a weighted average accuracy of 0.87. This study demonstrated that a wearable NIRS sensor can monitor respiratory patterns continuously and non-invasively and we identified three respiratory features that can distinguish between normal and simulated pathological breathing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".