Two-Stream Convolutional Neural Networks for Breathing Pattern Classification: Real-Time Monitoring of Respiratory Disease Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-stream convolutional neural network (TCNN) for breathing pattern classification has been devised for the continuous monitoring of patients with infectious respiratory diseases. The TCNN consists of a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based autoencoder and classifier. The encoder of the autoencoder generates deep compressed feature maps, which contain the most important information constituting data. These maps are concatenated with feature maps generated by the classifier to classify breathing patterns. The TCNN, single-stream CNN (SCNN), and state-of-the-art classification models were applied to classify four breathing patterns: normal, slow, rapid, and breath holding. The input data consisted of chest tissue hemodynamic responses measured using a wearable near-infrared spectroscopy device on 14 healthy adult participants. Among the classification models evaluated, random forest had the lowest classification accuracy at 88.49%, while the TCNN achieved the highest classification accuracy at 94.63%. In addition, the proposed TCNN performed 2.6% better in terms of classification accuracy than an SCNN (without an autoencoder). Moreover, the TCNN mitigates the issue of declining learning performance with increasing network depth, as observed in the SCNN model. These results prove the robustness of the TCNN in classifying breathing patterns despite using a significantly smaller number of parameters and computations compared to state-of-the-art classification models.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it