Breath characteristics and adventitious lung sounds in healthy and asthmatic horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standard thoracic auscultation suffers from limitations, and no systematic analysis of breath sounds in asthmatic horses exists. OBJECTIVES: First, characterize breath sounds in horses recorded using a novel digital auscultation device (DAD). Second, use DAD to compare breath variables and occurrence of adventitious sounds in healthy and asthmatic horses. ANIMALS: Twelve healthy control horses (ctl), 12 horses with mild to moderate asthma (mEA), 10 horses with severe asthma (sEA) (5 in remission [sEA-], and 5 in exacerbation [sEA+]). METHODS: Prospective multicenter case-control study. Horses were categorized based on the horse owner-assessed respiratory signs index. Each horse was digitally auscultated in 11 locations simultaneously for 1 hour. One-hundred breaths per recording were randomly selected, blindly categorized, and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Digital auscultation allowed breath sound characterization and scoring in horses. Wheezes, crackles, rattles, and breath intensity were significantly more frequent, higher (P < .001, P < .01, P = .01, P < .01, respectively) in sEA+ (68.6%, 66.1%, 17.7%, 97.9%, respectively), but not in sEA- (0%, 0.7%, 1.3%, 5.6%) or mEA (0%, 1.0%, 2.4%, 1.7%) horses, compared to ctl (0%, 0.6%, 1.8%, -9.4%, respectively). Regression analysis suggested breath duration and intensity as explanatory variables for groups, wheezes for tracheal mucus score, and breath intensity and wheezes for the 23-point weighted clinical score (WCS23). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The DAD permitted characterization and quantification of breath variables, which demonstrated increased adventitious sounds in sEA+. Analysis of a larger sample is needed to determine differences among ctl, mEA, and sEA- horses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".