MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415609969 · doi:10.3390/e27111109

Distinguishing Between Healthy and Unhealthy Newborns Based on Acoustic Features and Deep Learning Neural Networks Tuned by Bayesian Optimization and Random Search Algorithm

2025· article· en· W4415609969 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Lahmiri, Chakib Tadj, Christian Gargour

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian optimizationArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Deep neural networksBayesian probabilityMel-frequency cepstrumFeedforward neural networkCepstrumRandom search

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voice analysis and classification for biomedical diagnosis purpose is receiving a growing attention to assist physicians in the decision-making process in clinical milieu. In this study, we develop and test deep feedforward neural networks (DFFNN) to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy newborns. The DFFNN are trained with acoustic features measured from newborn cries, including auditory-inspired amplitude modulation (AAM), Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC), and prosody. The configuration of the DFFNN is optimized by using Bayesian optimization (BO) and random search (RS) algorithm. Under both optimization techniques, the experimental results show that the DFFNN yielded to the highest classification rate when trained with all acoustic features. Specifically, the DFFNN-BO and DFFNN-RS achieved 87.80% ± 0.23 and 86.12% ± 0.33 accuracy, respectively, under ten-fold cross-validation protocol. Both DFFNN-BO and DFFNN-RS outperformed existing approaches tested on the same database.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207