Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25296955›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2014

Validation of computerized wheeze detection in young infants during the first months of life.

Lia C Puder, Hendrik S Fischer, Silke Wilitzki, Jakob Usemann, Simon Godfrey, Gerd Schmalisch

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Leveraging artificial intelligence for the management of preschool wheeze: A narrative review.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lia C Puder
Hendrik S Fischer
Silke Wilitzki
Jakob Usemann
Simon Godfrey
Gerd SchmalischDepartment of Neonatology, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. gerd.schmalisch@charite.de.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHebrew University of Jerusalem · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral respiratory diseases are associated with specific respiratory sounds. In contrast to auscultation, computerized lung sound analysis is objective and can be performed continuously over an extended period. Moreover, audio recordings can be stored. Computerized lung sounds have rarely been assessed in neonates during the first year of life. This study was designed to determine and validate optimal cut-off values for computerized wheeze detection, based on the assessment by trained clinicians of stored records of lung sounds, in infants aged <1 year.

methodsLung sounds in 120 sleeping infants, of median (interquartile range) postmenstrual age of 51 (44.5-67.5) weeks, were recorded on 144 test occasions by an automatic wheeze detection device (PulmoTrack®). The records were retrospectively evaluated by three trained clinicians blinded to the results. Optimal cut-off values for the automatically determined relative durations of inspiratory and expiratory wheezing were determined by receiver operating curve analysis, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated.

resultsThe optimal cut-off values for the automatically detected durations of inspiratory and expiratory wheezing were 2% and 3%, respectively. These cutoffs had a sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% and 80.7%, respectively, for inspiratory wheezing and 84.6% and 82.5%, respectively, for expiratory wheezing. Inter-observer reliability among the experts was moderate, with a Fleiss' Kappa (95% confidence interval) of 0.59 (0.57-0.62) for inspiratory and 0.54 (0.52 - 0.57) for expiratory wheezing.

conclusionComputerized wheeze detection is feasible during the first year of life. This method is more objective and can be more readily standardized than subjective auscultation, providing quantitative and noninvasive information about the extent of wheezing.

Indexed as

Respiratory SoundsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleFourier AnalysisHumansInfantMaleObserver VariationRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25296955
PMCPMC4287542
OpenAlexW2033237720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.