ArticleMicromachines2025
A Nasal Resistance Measurement System Based on Multi-Sensor Fusion of Pressure and Flow.
Article in Micromachines, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nasal obstruction is a common symptom of nasal conditions, with nasal resistance being a crucial physiological indicator for assessing severity. However, traditional rhinomanometry faces challenges with interference, limited automation, and unstable measurement results. To address these issues, this research designed a nasal resistance measurement system based on multi-sensor fusion of pressure and flow. The system comprises lower computer hardware for acquiring raw pressure-flow signals in the nasal cavity and upper computer software for segmenting and filtering effective respiratory cycles and calculating various nasal resistance indicators. Meanwhile, the system's anti-interference capability was assessed using recall, precision, and accuracy rates for respiratory cycle recognition, while stability was evaluated by analyzing the standard deviation of nasal resistance indicators. The experimental results demonstrate that the system achieves recall and precision rates of 99% and 86%, respectively, for the recognition of effective respiratory cycles. Additionally, under the three common interference scenarios of saturated or weak breaths, breaths when not worn properly, and multiple breaths, the system can achieve a maximum accuracy of 96.30% in identifying ineffective respiratory cycles. Furthermore, compared to the measurement without filtering for effective respiratory cycles, the system reduces the median within-group standard deviation across four types of nasal resistance measurements by 5 to 18 times. In conclusion, the nasal resistance measurement system developed in this research demonstrates strong anti-interference capabilities, significantly enhances the automation of the measurement process and the stability of the measurement results, and offers robust technical support for the auxiliary diagnosis of related nasal conditions.
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.