ReviewScandinavian journal of primary health care2026
Chest auscultation - tradition and expectations
Review in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI-assisted digital stethoscopes can classify heart and lung sounds with accuracy comparable to or exceeding that of the average clinician and help the physician in the diagnostic process. With this essay we want to discuss benefits and downsides of this new technology. Will proficiency in auscultation, which brings joy and pride to many stethoscope users, be suffering when interpretation of chest sounds is taken over by AI? And how will recommendations from AI in the diagnostic process influence decision making and the patient-doctor relationship? A tendency toward deskilling of auscultation proficiency can be counteracted when AI-assisted interpretation is used as a reflective tool, comparing machine output against clinical perception to sharpen diagnostic acuity. This concept of a collaboration of humans and AI will be important with regard to keeping AI-algorithms trustworthy. We still need more research on heart and lung sounds, to gain a detailed understanding of the clinical significance of various sound characteristics. The smart stethoscope will be useful for this research. Better knowledge will benefit not only algorithm development but also clinicians using traditional stethoscopes. The traditional stethoscope will probably prevail as the main instruments for chest auscultation in foreseeable future. Smart stethoscopes may become useful tools in the education of their users.
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.