MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detecting Defecation Premonition from the Acoustic Activity of Bowel Sounds

2025· article· W4416799618 on OpenAlexaff
Shota Miyagawa, Toshitaka Yamakawa, Masayuki Tanabe, Kazushi Ikeda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)QUAD Engineering (Canada)
FundersJapan Science and Technology Corporation
KeywordsDefecationSound (geography)Sound analysisDiscriminative modelStatistical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates a method for detecting predefecatory signs from bowel sounds to help prevent fecal incontinence. We compared two analytical approaches: a macroanalysis of entire 8-second audio clips and a micro-analysis of individually detected bowel sound events. Using data collected from a single subject, multiple machine learning models were evaluated for their ability to classify audio as either belonging to a specific time window before defecation (ranging from 10 to 270 minutes) or to other times. The results consistently showed that the macro-analysis outperformed the micro-analysis in overall discriminative performance. A CNN-BiLSTM model achieved the highest performance in the macro-analysis, with a peak AUC of 0.76 for the 60-minute pre-defecation window. A subsequent statistical analysis revealed that this performance difference is attributable to a significant increase in the frequency and total duration of bowel sound events prior to defecation ($p<0.001$,$r=0.378$). These findings indicate that the quantitative density of bowel sound events is a more dominant indicator for detecting defecation premonition than the qualitative acoustic characteristics of individual sounds. This suggests that focusing on event frequency analysis is a more promising direction for developing non-invasive prediction systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207