Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37126593›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Evaluating Listening Performance for COVID-19 Detection by Clinicians and Machine Learning: Comparative Study.

Jing Han, Marco Montagna, Andreas Grammenos, Tong Xia, Erika Bondareva, Chloë Siegele-Brown, Jagmohan Chauhan, Ting Dang, Dimitris Spathis, R Andres Floto and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Cough biomarkers for diagnosis and monitoring of respiratory disease: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Chatbots and COVID-19: Taking Stock of the Lessons Learned.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    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

12 authors.

Jing HanDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5776-6849
Marco MontagnaDepartment of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0907-7640
Andreas GrammenosDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2525-5101
Tong XiaDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6994-6318
Erika BondarevaDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2046-3278
Chloë Siegele-BrownElectronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9229-3351
Jagmohan ChauhanElectronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2080-3276
Ting DangDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3806-1493
Dimitris SpathisDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9761-951X
R Andres FlotoDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2188-5659
Pietro CicutaDepartment of Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9193-8496
Cecilia MascoloDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9614-4380

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, performance comparisons between men and machines have been carried out in many health domains. Yet machine learning (ML) models and human performance comparisons in audio-based respiratory diagnosis remain largely unexplored.

objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to compare human clinicians and an ML model in predicting COVID-19 from respiratory sound recordings.

methodsIn this study, we compared human clinicians and an ML model in predicting COVID-19 from respiratory sound recordings. Prediction performance on 24 audio samples (12 tested positive) made by 36 clinicians with experience in treating COVID-19 or other respiratory illnesses was compared with predictions made by an ML model trained on 1162 samples. Each sample consisted of voice, cough, and breathing sound recordings from 1 subject, and the length of each sample was around 20 seconds. We also investigated whether combining the predictions of the model and human experts could further enhance the performance in terms of both accuracy and confidence.

resultsThe ML model outperformed the clinicians, yielding a sensitivity of 0.75 and a specificity of 0.83, whereas the best performance achieved by the clinicians was 0.67 in terms of sensitivity and 0.75 in terms of specificity. Integrating the clinicians' and the model's predictions, however, could enhance performance further, achieving a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.92.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that the clinicians and the ML model could make better clinical decisions via a cooperative approach and achieve higher confidence in audio-based respiratory diagnosis.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiratory SoundsRespiratory Tract DiseasesDeep LearningHumansMachine LearningMalePhysiciansaudio analysisclinical decisionscliniciansCOVID-19 detectiondeep learningdetectionmachine learningmobile healthrespiratoryrespiratory diagnosisrespiratory disease diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID37126593
PMCPMC10206619

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.