Classify Respiratory Abnormality in Lung Sounds Using STFT and a Fine-Tuned ResNet18 Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing patterns in lung sounds is crucial to detecting and monitoring respiratory diseases. Current techniques for analyzing respiratory sounds demand domain experts and are subject to interpretation. Hence an accurate and automatic respiratory sound classification system is desired. In this work, we took a data-driven approach to classify abnormal lung sounds. We compared the performance using three different feature extraction techniques, which are short-time Fourier transformation (STFT), Mel spectrograms, and Wav2vec, as well as three different classifiers, including pre-trained ResNet18, LightCNN, and Audio Spectrogram Transformer. Our key contributions include the bench-marking of different audio feature extractors and neural network based classifiers, and the implementation of a complete pipeline using STFT and a fine-tuned ResNet18 network. The proposed method achieved Harmonic Scores of 0.89, 0.80, 0.71, 0.36 for tasks 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2, respectively on the testing sets in the IEEE BioCAS 2022 Grand Challenge on Respiratory Sound Classification.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".