Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37945314›Full record

ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2023

Performance evaluation of human cough annotators: optimal metrics and sex differences.

Isabel Sanchez-Olivieri, Matthew Rudd, Juan Carlos Gabaldon-Figueira, Francisco Carmona-Torre, Jose Luis Del Pozo, Reid Moorsmith, Lola Jover, Mindaugas Galvosas, Peter Small, Simon Grandjean Lapierre and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05042063 (Acoustic Cough Monitoring for the Management of Patients With Known Respiratory Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05042063 completednot on this map

Acoustic Cough Monitoring for the Management of Patients With Known Respiratory Disease

TypeobservationalSponsorClinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de NavarraRan2021 to 2022Enrolled616ConditionsCough, COPD, GERD, AsthmaArmsHyfe Cough Tracker, Hyfe Air
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Isabel Sanchez-OlivieriUniversidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Matthew RuddHyfe Inc, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
Juan Carlos Gabaldon-FigueiraISGlobal, Barcelona institute for Global Health, Barcelona, Spain.
Francisco Carmona-TorreUniversidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Jose Luis Del PozoUniversidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Reid MoorsmithHyfe Inc, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
Lola JoverHyfe Inc, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
Mindaugas GalvosasHyfe Inc, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7953-3309
Peter SmallHyfe Inc, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
Simon Grandjean Lapierre *Dept of Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Research Center of the University of Montreal Hospital Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Carlos Chaccour *Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain carlos.chaccour@isglobal.org.ORCID 0000-0001-9812-050X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite its high prevalence and significance, there is still no widely available method to quantify cough. In order to demonstrate agreement with the current gold standard of human annotation, emerging automated techniques require a robust, reproducible approach to annotation. We describe the extent to which a human annotator of cough sounds (a) agrees with herself (intralabeller or intrarater agreement) and (b) agrees with other independent labellers (interlabeller or inter-rater agreement); we go on to describe significant sex differences in cough sound length and epochs size. MATERIALS AND

methods24 participants wore an audiorecording smartwatch to capture 6-24 hours of continuous audio. A randomly selected sample of the whole audio was labelled twice by an expert annotator and a third time by six trained annotators. We collected 400 hours of audio and analysed 40 hours. The cough counts as well as cough seconds (any 1 s of time containing at least one cough) from different annotators were compared and summary statistics from linear and Bland-Altman analyses were used to quantify intraobserver and interobserver agreement.

resultsThere was excellent intralabeller (less than two disagreements per hour monitored, Pearson's correlation 0.98) and interlabeller agreement (Pearson's correlation 0.96), using cough seconds as the unit of analysis decreased annotator discrepancies by 50% in comparison to coughs. Within this data set, it was observed that the length of cough sounds and epoch size (number of coughs per bout or attach) differed between women and men.

conclusionGiven the decreased interobserver variability in annotation when using cough seconds (vs just coughs) we propose their use for manually annotating cough when assessing of the performance of automatic cough monitoring systems. The differences in cough sound length and epochs size may have important implications for equality in the development of cough monitoring tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05042063.

Indexed as

CoughSex CharacteristicsFemaleHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicObserver VariationPrevalenceCough/Mechanisms/Pharmacology

Identifiers

PMID37945314
PMCPMC10649781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.