Background
Methods
Study design
Study period | |||
---|---|---|---|
Pre-enrolment | Enrolment | Close-out | |
Timepoint | −t1 | t0 | |
Study procedures | |||
Recruitment | ✓ | ||
Eligibility screening | ✓ | ||
Informed consent form | ✓ | ||
Assessments | |||
Case report form (demographic + clinical data) | ✓ | ✓ | |
EKO CORE digital auscultation collection | ✓ | ✓ | |
Pulmonary function tests | ✓ | ||
Chest CT-scan/X-ray | ✓ | ||
Lung ultrasound | ✓ | ||
K-BILD questionnaire | ✓ | ||
CAT questionnaire | ✓ | ||
SF-36 questionnaire | ✓ |
Population
Recruitment and informed consent procedure
Hypothesis and objectives
Primary hypothesis
Primary objective
Secondary hypothesis
Secondary objective
Primary and secondary outcomes
Study procedure
Lung sound recording
LUS
AI algorithms
Diagnostic and risk stratification algorithms
Exploring the synergy of clinical data with breath sounds
Clinical assessment of lung auscultation and LUS
Pulmonary function tests and chest CT scan
Questionnaires
Sample size calculation
Statistical analysis plan
Discussion
Related works | Sample size | Purpose | Features | Performance | Issues |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aykanat et al. [67] | 40 IPF, 211 COPD, and 574 other pulmonary single or mixed conditions, 805 healthy subjects | Binary classification (healthy vs pathological) and 12-class lung disease classification | SVM, k-NN, GB | Performance for binary classification: Acc 88% to 92% Se 85% to 92% Sp 85% to 88% Performance for lung disease classification: Acc 43% to 68% Se 53% to 96% | Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Charleston-Villalobos et al. [68] | 19 ILD (12 IPF, 7 extrinsic allergic alveolitis), 8 healthy subjects | Binary classification (healthy subjects vs patients with ILD) | AR model, SNN | Performance evaluation of the neural network: Acc 76.9% to 98.8%, Se 80.4% to 100%, Sp 73.3% to 100% | Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Flietstra et al. [69] | 39 IPF, 95 CHF, 123 PN | Binary classification (IPF vs CHF and IPF vs PN) | BPNN, SVM | Acoustic properties of fine crackles of IPF help distinguish them from crackles of CHF and PN | No healthy subjects. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Fukumitsu et al. [70] | 71 ILD (24 honeycombing + , 47 honeycombing-) | Predicting honeycombing on HRCT by the acoustic properties of fine crackles | FFT | Acoustic properties of fine crackles distinguish the honeycombing from the non-honeycombing group | No healthy subjects. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Horimasu et al. [71] | 34 ILD, 8 COPD or asthma, 7 lung tumor, 5 lung nodule, 6 other | Comparisons of machine-learning-based quantification of four types of lung sounds between lung fields with and without ILD in HRCT and chest X-ray | Described in [72] | AUROC 0.855, Acc 75%, Se 76.1%, Sp 73.6% | Severity classification not done. Results suffered from the presence of background noise. LUS not used |
Kahya et al. [73] | 23 ILD, 28 COPD, 18 healthy | Binary classification (healthy vs pathological) | AR model, k-NN | Acc 71.1% | Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Kim et al. [74] | 112 ILD, 211 COPD, 497 other pulmonary conditions, 51 healthy | Binary classification (healthy vs pathological) and three-class (crackles vs wheezes vs rhonchi) classification | CNN | Performance for binary classification: AUROC 0.93 Acc 86.5% Performance for abnormal sounds classification: AUROC 0.92 Acc 85.7% | Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Malmberg et al. [75] | 8 fibrosing alveolitis, 8 emphysema, 8 asthma, 8 healthy subjects | Diagnosis agreement between clinical and machine-learning-based classification of lung sounds | FFT, SOM | Kappa for fibrosing alveolitis 0.54 | Small number of patients. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Manfredi et al. [76] | 98 CTD patients (42 ILD + , 56 ILD-) | Identifying CTD patients with possible ILD using lung sound-based binary classification (presence vs absence of ILD) compared with chest HRCT | FFT | Acc 82.6%, Se 88.1%, Sp 78.6% | No healthy subjects. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Manfredi et al. [38] | 137 RA patients (59 ILD + , 78 ILD-) | Identifying RA patients with possible ILD using lung sound-based binary classification (presence vs absence of ILD) compared with chest HRCT | FFT | Overall performance: Acc 83.9%, Se 93.2%, Sp 76.9% Performance for velcro-like crackles detection: Acc 67.2%, Se 69.1%, Sp 65.7% | No healthy subjects. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Messner et al. [77] | 7 IPF, 16 healthy subjects | Binary classification (healthy subjects vs patients with IPF) | CRNN | F-score 92.4% Se 85.9% | Small number of patients. Manual crackles labelling required. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Messner et al. [78] | 5 IPF, 10 healthy subjects | Binary classification (healthy subjects vs patients with IPF) | GRNN | F-score 72.1% Se 71.5% | Small number of patients. Manual crackles labelling required. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Ono et al. [79] | 21 IPN, 10 healthy subjects | IPN detectability and severity classification | FFT | Spectral analysis of lung sounds is useful in the diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of IPN | LUS not used |
Pancaldi et al. [17] | 70 RA patients (27 ILD + , 43 ILD-) | Identifying RA patients with possible ILD using lung sound-based binary classification (presence vs absence of ILD) compared with chest HRCT | FFT | Acc 90%, Se 92.6%, Sp 88.4% | No healthy subjects. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Santiago-Fuentes et al. [80] | 19 ILD (10 IPF, 9 CPFES) | Binary classification (IPF vs CPFES) | AR model, SNN | Performance evaluation of the neural network: Acc 90.7% to 97.3%, Se 91.8% to 98.3%, Sp 87.5% to 96.3% | No healthy subjects. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |
Sen et al. [81] | 10 obstructive bronchiectasis, 10 ILD, 20 healthy subjects | Binary (healthy vs pathological) and three class (healthy, bronchiectasis and ILD) classifiers | AR model, SVM | Se 85%, Sp 85% Se 100% (three-class classifier) | Small number of patients. Severity classification not done. LUS not used |