ArticleScientific reports2020
The use of spectrograms improves the classification of wheezes and crackles in an educational setting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating few-shot prompting for spectrogram-based lung sound classification using a multimodal language model.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Heart murmurs in the general population: diagnostic value and prevalence from the Tromsø Study.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of visual stethoscopes for detecting bronchospasm in a patient under general anesthesia - A case report.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Early hypoxia prediction in diseased patients via wheezing sounds in respiration: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Machines Are Learning Chest Auscultation. Will They Also Become Our Teachers?CHEST pulmonary · 2024Review
- The unreliability of crackles: insights from a breath sound study using physicians and artificial intelligence.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Review on the Advancements of Stethoscope Types in Chest Auscultation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Interrater and intrarater agreement on heart murmurs.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- The seventh survey of the Tromsø Study (Tromsø7) 2015-2016: study design, data collection, attendance, and prevalence of risk factors and disease in a multipurpose population-based health survey.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2022Article
- Fully portable continuous real-time auscultation with a soft wearable stethoscope designed for automated disease diagnosis.Science advances · 2022Article
- Pilot study on nocturnal monitoring of crackles in children with pneumonia.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- Inspiratory crackles-early and late-revisited: identifying COPD by crackle characteristics.BMJ open respiratory research · 2021Article
- Agreement of Specific Lung Sounds Auscultation by Veterinarians for the Detection of Bronchopneumonia in Calves.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
- Breath characteristics and adventitious lung sounds in healthy and asthmatic horses.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest auscultation is a widely used method in the diagnosis of lung diseases. However, the interpretation of lung sounds is a subjective task and disagreements arise. New technological developments like the use of visSual representation of sounds through spectrograms could improve the agreement when classifying lung sounds, but this is not yet known. In this study, we tested if the use of spectrograms improves the agreement when classifying wheezes and crackles. To do this, we asked twenty-three medical students at UiT the Arctic University of Norway to classify 30 lung sounds recordings for the presence of wheezes and crackles. The sample contained 15 normal recordings and 15 with wheezes or crackles. The students classified the recordings in a random order twice. First sound only, then sound with spectrograms. We calculated kappa values for the agreement between each student and the expert classification with and without display of spectrograms and tested for significant improvement between these two coefficients. We also calculated Fleiss kappa for the 23 observers with and without the spectrogram. In an individual analysis comparing each student to an expert annotated reference standard we found that 13 out of 23 students had a positive change in kappa when classifying wheezes with the help of spectrograms. When classifying crackles 16 out of 23 showed improvement when spectrograms were used. In a group analysis we observed that Fleiss kappa values were k = 0.51 and k = 0.56 (p = 0.63) for classifying wheezes without and with spectrograms. For crackles, these values were k = 0.22 and k = 0.40 (p = <0.01) in the same order. Thus, we conclude that the use of spectrograms had a positive impact on the inter-rater agreement and the agreement with experts. We observed a higher improvement in the classification of crackles compared to wheezes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.