General Practice Research Unit, Department of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Sci Rep. 2020 May 21;10(1):8461. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65354-w.
Chest auscultation is a widely used method in the diagnosis of lung diseases. However, the interpretation of lung sounds is a subjective task and disagreements arise. New technological developments like the use of visSual representation of sounds through spectrograms could improve the agreement when classifying lung sounds, but this is not yet known. In this study, we tested if the use of spectrograms improves the agreement when classifying wheezes and crackles. To do this, we asked twenty-three medical students at UiT the Arctic University of Norway to classify 30 lung sounds recordings for the presence of wheezes and crackles. The sample contained 15 normal recordings and 15 with wheezes or crackles. The students classified the recordings in a random order twice. First sound only, then sound with spectrograms. We calculated kappa values for the agreement between each student and the expert classification with and without display of spectrograms and tested for significant improvement between these two coefficients. We also calculated Fleiss kappa for the 23 observers with and without the spectrogram. In an individual analysis comparing each student to an expert annotated reference standard we found that 13 out of 23 students had a positive change in kappa when classifying wheezes with the help of spectrograms. When classifying crackles 16 out of 23 showed improvement when spectrograms were used. In a group analysis we observed that Fleiss kappa values were k = 0.51 and k = 0.56 (p = 0.63) for classifying wheezes without and with spectrograms. For crackles, these values were k = 0.22 and k = 0.40 (p = <0.01) in the same order. Thus, we conclude that the use of spectrograms had a positive impact on the inter-rater agreement and the agreement with experts. We observed a higher improvement in the classification of crackles compared to wheezes.
胸部听诊是诊断肺部疾病的常用方法。然而,肺部声音的解释是一项主观任务,存在分歧。新的技术发展,如使用声谱图可视化声音,可以提高分类肺部声音的一致性,但这一点尚未得到证实。在这项研究中,我们测试了使用声谱图是否可以提高哮鸣音和爆裂音的分类一致性。为此,我们邀请了 23 名挪威特罗姆瑟大学的医学生对 30 份肺部声音记录进行分类,判断是否存在哮鸣音和爆裂音。样本包含 15 份正常记录和 15 份有哮鸣音或爆裂音的记录。学生们随机将录音分类两次。第一次只听声音,第二次听声音并结合声谱图。我们计算了学生与专家分类之间的 κ 值,并在有无声谱图显示的情况下进行了比较,以检验这两个系数之间是否有显著差异。我们还计算了有和声谱图无声谱图的 23 名观察者的 Fleiss κ 值。在对每个学生与专家标注参考标准的个体分析中,我们发现 23 名学生中有 13 名在使用声谱图分类哮鸣音时 κ 值有所提高。在分类爆裂音时,有 16 名学生使用声谱图后有所提高。在组分析中,我们观察到在不使用声谱图和使用声谱图分类哮鸣音时,Fleiss κ 值分别为 k=0.51 和 k=0.56(p=0.63)。对于爆裂音,这两个值分别为 k=0.22 和 k=0.40(p<0.01)。因此,我们得出结论,使用声谱图对评分者间的一致性和与专家的一致性有积极影响。我们观察到,在分类爆裂音时,与哮鸣音相比,其改善更为明显。