ArticleDigital health
Clinical decision support system using a machine learning model to assist simultaneous cardiopulmonary auscultation: Open-label randomized controlled trial.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The utility of a clinical decision support system using a machine learning (ML) model for simultaneous cardiac and pulmonary auscultation is unknown. Objective: This study aimed to develop and evaluate an ML system's utility for cardiopulmonary auscultation. Methods: First, we developed an ML system for cardiopulmonary auscultation, using cardiopulmonary sound files from our previous study. The technique involved pre-processing, feature extraction, and classification through several neural network layers. After integration, the output class was categorized as "normal," "abnormal," or "undetermined." Second, we evaluated the ML system with 24 junior residents in an open-label randomized controlled trial at a university hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to the ML system group (intervention) or conventional auscultation group (control). During training, participants listened to four cardiac and four pulmonary sounds, all of which were correctly classified. Then, participants classified a series of 16 simultaneous cardiopulmonary sounds. The control group auscultated the sounds using noise-cancelling headphones, while the intervention group did so by watching recommendations from the ML system. Results: The total scores for correctly identified normal or abnormal cardiopulmonary sounds in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group (366/384 [95.3%] vs. 343/384 [89.3%], Conclusions: The ML-based system improved the accuracy of cardiopulmonary auscultation for junior residents. This result suggests that the system can assist early-career physicians in accurate screening.
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.