Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39178033›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Automated Interpretation of Lung Sounds by Deep Learning in Children With Asthma: Scoping Review and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis.

Isabelle Ruchonnet-Métrailler, Johan N Siebert, Mary-Anne Hartley, Laurence Lacroix

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

4 authors.

Isabelle Ruchonnet-Métrailler *Pediatric Pulmonology Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Geneva Children's Hospital, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4771-875X
Johan N Siebert *Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2871-3382
Mary-Anne HartleyIntelligent Global Health Research Group, Machine Learning and Optimization Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8826-3870
Laurence LacroixFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6636-3344

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe interpretation of lung sounds plays a crucial role in the appropriate diagnosis and management of pediatric asthma. Applying artificial intelligence (AI) to this task has the potential to better standardize assessment and may even improve its predictive potential.

objectiveThis study aims to objectively review the literature on AI-assisted lung auscultation for pediatric asthma and provide a balanced assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

methodsA scoping review on AI-assisted lung sound analysis in children with asthma was conducted across 4 major scientific databases (PubMed, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, and Web of Science), supplemented by a gray literature search on Google Scholar, to identify relevant studies published from January 1, 2000, until May 23, 2023. The search strategy incorporated a combination of keywords related to AI, pulmonary auscultation, children, and asthma. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the ChAMAI (Checklist for the Assessment of Medical Artificial Intelligence).

resultsThe search identified 7 relevant studies out of 82 (9%) to be included through an academic literature search, while 11 of 250 (4.4%) studies from the gray literature search were considered but not included in the subsequent review and quality assessment. All had poor to medium ChAMAI scores, mostly due to the absence of external validation. Identified strengths were improved predictive accuracy of AI to allow for prompt and early diagnosis, personalized management strategies, and remote monitoring capabilities. Weaknesses were the heterogeneity between studies and the lack of standardization in data collection and interpretation. Opportunities were the potential of coordinated surveillance, growing data sets, and new ways of collaboratively learning from distributed data. Threats were both generic for the field of medical AI (loss of interpretability) but also specific to the use case, as clinicians might lose the skill of auscultation.

conclusionsTo achieve the opportunities of automated lung auscultation, there is a need to address weaknesses and threats with large-scale coordinated data collection in globally representative populations and leveraging new approaches to collaborative learning.

Indexed as

AsthmaDeep LearningRespiratory SoundsArtificial IntelligenceAuscultationChildHumansartificial intelligenceasthmaauscultationdeep learningmachine learningmobile phonepediatricrespiratory soundsstethoscopewheezing disorders

Identifiers

PMID39178033
PMCPMC11380063

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.