ArticleScientific reports2026
Respiratory sound analysis in a rabbit tracheomalacia model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tracheomalacia, which softens the tracheal wall and leads to airway collapse during breathing, can be challenging to detect, especially in children, due to its vague symptoms and the invasive nature of standard diagnostic procedures. In this study, we developed a rabbit model of tracheomalacia by surgically removing a portion of the tracheal cartilage in New Zealand White rabbits. Breath sounds and airway pressure were recorded using a clinical-grade stethoscope setup. From each exhaled breath, 6,373 acoustic features were extracted, and 51 of these, which showed consistent and statistically significant differences (p < 0.01), were selected in at least four out of five animals. We trained and evaluated three machine learning models—LightGBM, logistic regression, and support vector machines—using cross-validation. Among them, LightGBM delivered the highest performance, with area under the curve values > 0.78 for individual breaths and > 0.80 when averaged per subject. The most important features were the low-frequency components of Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients, which likely detected subtle changes in airflow caused by airway collapse. These findings support the potential use of respiratory sound analysis combined with machine learning as a practical and non-invasive tool for identifying tracheomalacia. This model may also be useful for developing pediatric diagnostic methods due to the anatomical similarities between rabbit and neonatal airways.
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.