ReviewCHEST pulmonary2024
Machines Are Learning Chest Auscultation. Will They Also Become Our Teachers?
Review in CHEST pulmonary, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chest auscultation - tradition and expectationsScandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Review
- Wheeze detection in real-world pediatric care: AI applied to smartphone lung auscultation.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Usefulness of lung sound data collection using Skeeper SM-300® device: A pilot study.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Great strides in the development of machine learning techniques are bringing applications of artificial intelligence to ever more areas of clinical medicine. Their potential in the evaluation of visual images and in speech recognition is well established. Recently, the capabilities of machine hearing have been also applied to chest auscultation (ie, the automated analysis, characterization, and classification of heart and lung sounds). Comparing strengths and limitations of human vs machine hearing can help to put these developments in perspective. Humans have multisensory perception (ie, they receive visual and tactile information while auscultating). Humans also surpass machines in the ability to focus attention on listening for specific sounds in noisy environments. Together with information on a patient's history and presumed medical diagnosis, and with frequent repetition, chest auscultation remains a trainable and valuable human skill. Advantages of machine hearing of chest sounds with digital stethoscopes include not only objective acoustic analysis but also storage of data that allows comparisons over time, presentation in audiovisual format, and wireless communication. Machines can support patient management by relating acoustic analyses to clinical diagnoses, serving as decision support for further investigations, and by monitoring of patients over time. The potential of machines to become teachers of chest auscultation is only now coming into focus. In the near future, assessment of chest sounds will largely remain in the domain of traditional acoustic stethoscopes. However, machines may well be used for training students in different health care professions and nonmedical caregivers, provided that humans remain part of the process.
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.