Design and Analysis of a Contact Piezo Microphone for Recording Tracheal Breathing Sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of tracheal breathing sounds (TBS) is a significant area of study in medical diagnostics and monitoring for respiratory diseases and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Recorded at the suprasternal notch, TBS can provide detailed insights into the respiratory system's functioning and health. This method has been particularly useful for non-invasive assessments and is used in various clinical settings, such as OSA, asthma, respiratory infectious diseases, lung function, and detection during either wakefulness or sleep. One of the challenges and limitations of TBS recording is the background noise, including speech sound, movement, and even non-tracheal breathing sounds propagating in the air. The breathing sounds captured from the nose or mouth can interfere with the tracheal breathing sounds, making it difficult to isolate the sounds necessary for accurate diagnostics. In this study, two surface microphones are proposed to accurately record TBS acquired solely from the trachea. The frequency response of each microphone is compared with a reference microphone. Additionally, this study evaluates the tracheal and lung breathing sounds of six participants recorded using the proposed microphones versus a commercial omnidirectional microphone, both in environments with and without background white noise. The proposed microphones demonstrated reduced susceptibility to background noise particularly in the frequency ranges (1800-2199) Hz and (2200-2599) Hz with maximum deviation of 2 dB and 2.1 dB, respectively, compared to 9 dB observed in the commercial microphone. The findings of this study have potential implications for improving the accuracy and reliability of respiratory diagnostics in clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".