Masking of Korotkoff sounds used in blood pressure measurement through auscultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of blood pressure (BP) through manual auscultation and the observation of Korotkoff sounds (KSs) remains the gold standard in BP methodology. Critical to determining BP levels via auscultation is the determination of KS audibility. While absolute sound level audibility is well researched, the problem has not been approached from the point of view of psychoacoustic masking of the sounds. Here, during manual auscultation of BP, a direct comparison is made between what an observer perceives as audible and the electronic analysis of audibility level determined from masking of sound signal levels. KSs are collected during auscultation with an electronic stethoscope, which allows simultaneously observing sound audibility and recording the sound electronically. By time-segmenting the recorded sound around Korotkoff peaks into a test segment and a masking segment, performing Fourier transforms on the segments, and comparing frequency-band sound energy levels, signal-to-noise ratios of a sound to its masking counterpart can be defined. Comparing these ratios to difference limen in the psychoacoustic masking literature, an approximate threshold for sound audibility is obtained. It is anticipated that this approach could have profound effects on future development of automated auscultation BP measurements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".