ArticleJournal of global health2025
Performance of an artificial intelligence algorithm for interpreting lung sounds from children hospitalised with pneumonia in Malawi.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
The BLAAAST Trial: Bangladesh Lung Auscultation AI for Antibiotic Stewardship Randomized Controlled Trial
The LalelaLung Study: Digital Stethoscope Clinical Evaluation
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wheeze detection in real-world pediatric care: AI applied to smartphone lung auscultation.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Humanizing pulmonary care in the era of acoustic artificial intelligence: toward global health equity.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pneumonia is a leading cause of death in under five year olds globally. World Health Organization (WHO) pneumonia diagnostic guidelines rely on non-specific clinical findings. Lung auscultation could improve pneumonia diagnosis, but conventional stethoscopes have implementation challenges. To address this, we developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled digital auscultation system. We evaluated the system's AI lung sound analysis algorithm in children with severe pneumonia in Malawi. Methods: We enrolled children aged 2-59 months hospitalised with WHO-defined severe pneumonia. A study physician recorded lung sounds with a digital stethoscope at six chest positions. Recordings were de-identified, filtered, and interpreted by a trained and certified physician listening panel. Interpretable recordings were analysed by the AI algorithm. We evaluated the agreement of normal (absence of adventitial lung sounds) vs. abnormal (presence of adventitial lung sounds) classifications, by chest position and by patient, between the AI algorithm and the listening panel using raw percent agreement kappa statistics, both unadjusted and adjusted for chance agreement. Results: We enrolled 100 children and analysed 95 with interpretable recordings. The median age was 12.6 months (interquartile range (IQR) = 5.4, 19.0) and 54% (51 / 95) were female. Among interpretable recordings, 59.2% (294 / 497) of chest positions were abnormal per the listening panel compared to 52.7% (262 / 497) per the AI algorithm. The listening panel and AI algorithm agreed on classifications in 83.1% (413 / 497) of chest positions (unadjusted kappa 0.7; adjusted kappa 0.7) and 91.6% (87/95) of patients (unadjusted kappa 0.7; adjusted kappa 0.8). The AI algorithm's sensitivity and specificity for identifying abnormal lung sounds, compared to the listening panel, were 80.3% and 87.2% for chest positions and 96.3%, and 66.7% for patients. Conclusions: This AI lung sound classification algorithm accurately identified abnormal lung sounds in children with severe pneumonia. Next steps include training the algorithm to identify uninterpretable recordings and different abnormal sounds.
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.