Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

RA-QA turns 11 respiratory audio datasets into 9 million QA pairs and shows current audio-language models rarely answer clinically correctly.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 04:33 UTC pith:RZN5OVML

load-bearing objection Useful 9M-pair respiratory-audio QA benchmark, but the headline claim about model failure is muddied by pooling audio-unanswerable metadata questions with audio-grounded ones. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.18452 v3 pith:RZN5OVML submitted 2026-02-04 cs.SD cs.LGeess.AS

RA-QA: A Benchmarking System for Respiratory Audio Question Answering Under Real-World Heterogeneity

Gaia A. Bertolino , Yuwei Zhang , Tong Xia , Domenico Talia , Cecilia Mascolo This is my paper
classification cs.SD cs.LGeess.AS
keywords respiratory audioquestion answeringbenchmarkaudio-language modelsmultimodalhealthcareheterogeneityaudio QA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that respiratory-audio question answering can be systematically benchmarked by converting existing public datasets into a large, format-diverse collection of question-answer pairs, and that doing so exposes a gap between what general audio-language models appear to understand and what they get clinically right. The authors build RA-QA: a pipeline that harmonizes 11 public respiratory audio datasets into 9 million QA pairs covering diagnostic and contextual attributes across cough, breath, speech, and auscultation recordings, with open-ended, multiple-choice, and yes/no question formats. They then evaluate classical and multimodal baselines under one protocol, showing that a general audio-language model transfers poorly (near-zero task-level accuracy on many question types) even when semantic similarity scores look moderate, and that question-conditioned trained models improve but remain far from clinically reliable. If correct, RA-QA provides the field with a reproducible stress test and a shared reference point for building respiratory-specific, question-conditioned models.

Core claim

The central discovery is that RA-QA's heterogeneity — multiple question formats over the same recording, diverse devices and modalities, both categorical and numeric targets across four attribute families — breaks the assumption that semantic fidelity implies clinical correctness. The paper reports that a representative general audio-language model, prompted with audio and question, produces answers with near-zero task-level MacroF1 on open-ended and multiple-choice discriminative questions despite moderate BERTScore, and that even trained multimodal baselines show a wide gap between linguistic quality (up to 0.96 BERTScore) and clinical accuracy (0.11–0.59 MacroF1). The authors interpret th

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the RA-QA generation pipeline, which standardizes heterogeneous metadata, maps labels to descriptive text, instantiates JSON templates into open-ended, multiple-choice, and single-verify questions, and programmatically pairs each patient's metadata with their respiratory recordings to produce personalized QA pairs. The evaluation protocol's two metrics — BERTScore for semantic fidelity and MacroF1/MAE for task-level clinical correctness — are the instrument that reveals the semantic-versus-clinical gap.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark treats the source datasets' metadata labels — some self-reported, some clinically validated — as ground truth for clinical correctness, and assumes that template-generated questions resemble the way real clinicians and patients will ask about respiratory audio.

What would settle it

A clinician-annotation study: have respiratory clinicians listen to a sample of RA-QA recordings and answer the template questions, then compare their answers with the metadata-derived ground truth. If agreement is low on self-reported attributes (e.g., symptoms or diagnosis in crowdsourced datasets), the benchmark's 'clinical correctness' scores and the conclusion that models fail would need to be reinterpreted; alternatively, if a model fine-tuned on RA-QA achieves high task-level accuracy on real-world patient questions collected from a telemedicine service, the template-based benchmark wou

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • General audio-language models that perform well on audio captioning cannot be assumed to transfer to respiratory QA; zero-shot performance can be near chance at the task level.
  • Reporting only semantic similarity can overstate clinical reliability; benchmark evaluations should report task-level correctness alongside text-level fidelity.
  • Question conditioning helps: a late-fusion multimodal classifier improves MacroF1 on single-verify questions over both audio-only and majority baselines, indicating that the question text carries disambiguating information.
  • Domain-trained audio-to-LLM alignment produces fluent answers (BERTScore up to 0.96) but still limited task correctness, so further work is needed to close the semantic-clinical gap.
  • The benchmark's leakage-aware splits and unified protocol allow reproducible comparison across future models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because RA-QA answers are generated from templates and metadata, the benchmark likely underestimates the difficulty of free-form patient questions; a natural extension is to collect real user queries and re-ask them against the same recordings.
  • The observed disconnect between BERTScore and MacroF1 suggests that other medical audio QA systems evaluated only on text-level metrics may be similarly overrated; re-scoring existing systems with label-extraction metrics is a direct test.
  • RA-QA's 9M pairs could serve as pretraining data for respiratory-specific audio-language models; the authors' own CaReAQA-style baseline hints that such training helps but is not sufficient, so scaling with more diverse formats may be a promising next step.
  • The self-reported nature of some source labels, if compared against clinically confirmed diagnoses, could be used to quantify label noise and its effect on benchmark scores.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces RA-QA, a benchmark for respiratory audio question answering. It curates 11 public respiratory-audio datasets, standardizes their metadata, and programmatically generates roughly 9 million QA pairs using template questions in three formats (open-ended, multiple-choice, single-verify) across four attribute families (acoustic features, consultation context, demographics/health profile, recording context). The authors benchmark several baselines: random and majority classifiers, an audio-only SVM, a late-fusion multimodal classifier, zero-shot Pengi, and a CaReAQA-style generative audio-to-LLM model. Results are reported as MacroF1/MAE for task-level correctness and BERTScore for semantic fidelity. The main claims are that RA-QA is a large, heterogeneous, reproducible benchmarking resource, and that it exposes the limited robustness of current audio-language models for respiratory audio QA.

Significance. If the resource is built as described, RA-QA is a substantial and potentially valuable contribution: it provides a standardized generation pipeline, a large public QA collection, and reproducible baseline evaluations with released code and QA pairs. The observation that high semantic similarity can coexist with low task-level correctness is worth reporting and will be of interest to the audio-language and health-AI communities. However, the headline conclusions about model failure and clinical correctness rest on aggregate scores that pool fundamentally different question types; these conclusions require per-attribute and per-dataset evidence before they can be accepted. The paper's strengths are its scale, reproducibility, and the inclusion of multiple baseline families.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1 and Table 2] The global benchmark scores pool all four attribute families, but only 'acoustic features' are answerable from the recording itself. For consultation context, demographics, and recording context, the answer is drawn from source metadata and is largely not recoverable from the audio and question alone; the audio-only baseline is near chance on those attributes by design. The label-balanced subset (Sec. 3.3) ensures these metadata-only attributes are present in the test set. Consequently, the aggregate MacroF1/MAE conflates audio understanding with prior memorization, and the conclusion that Pengi and CaReAQA-style models 'fail under heterogeneity' may be an artifact of task design. The two case studies in Table 3 do not fill this gap. I request per-attribute and per-dataset breakdowns, or a separate reporting of audio-answerable versus metadata-only questions.
  2. [Table 1] The 9M-pair scale is dominated by a single source: UK COVID-19 contributes 8,089,056 of 8,996,137 QA pairs (~90%), and also accounts for 232,129 of the 234,064 unique answers. This does not invalidate the resource, but it weakens the claim of broad heterogeneity unless results are shown to be consistent across sources. At present, the headline conclusions are driven almost entirely by one self-reported dataset, and no per-source analysis is provided.
  3. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3.2] The benchmark treats source metadata labels, including self-reported symptoms and statuses, as ground truth for scoring 'clinical correctness.' The manuscript acknowledges that some labels are clinically validated and others are self-reported, but the evaluation protocol makes no distinction. This is an unvalidated proxy, and calling task-level accuracy 'clinical correctness' overstates the medical meaning of the numbers. A sensitivity analysis restricted to clinically validated subsets (e.g., ICBHI) or a separate reporting of self-reported vs. clinically validated labels is needed to support the clinical framing.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Table 2] The main trained baselines — audio-only SVM, multimodal classifier, and CaReAQA-style model — are reported without error bars or multiple-seed variation. Only the random baseline is described as repeated over 5 seeds. Given that the subset is sampled and the train/validation/test split is partly stratified, the observed differences, such as 0.59 vs. 0.51 on single-verify or 0.11 vs. 0.16 on multiple-choice, may be within variance. Confidence intervals or repeated runs with a fixed seed scheme are necessary to support the comparative claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The regression row header reads 'Regressive Open-ended'; 'Regressive' should be 'Regression.' Also, BERTScore is not reported for the multimodal classifier and Pengi is N/A for regression; the caption should explain these omissions so readers can compare across methods.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The split rule is described as '70/15/15' but also 'Assigned splits followed the original dataset protocols when available.' Please clarify which datasets used original protocols and which used 70/15/15, and whether any dataset's original test set was reused in RA-QA's evaluation.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The semantic-level metric (BERTScore) is very high for random and majority baselines (0.92–0.99), because template-generated answers are short and predictable. The paper should discuss what BERTScore adds beyond template overlap and why such high semantic fidelity is not itself evidence of clinical usefulness.
  4. [Abstract / Sec. 3.1] The abstract says 'classical ML baselines' but the only unimodal ML baseline is an SVM. Consider naming it explicitly or broadening the description to 'shallow baselines.'
  5. [References] Reference [18] contains 'J. Ch' which appears to be an incomplete author name; please verify and complete. Also ensure the anonymous repository link will be replaced with a persistent DOI or archival link at publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: RA-QA is an assembled benchmark with externally sourced data and independently evaluated baselines.

full rationale

RA-QA is a dataset-construction and benchmarking paper, not a derivational result. The core pipeline (Sec. 2.2) programmatically instantiates JSON question templates from standardized metadata of 11 public datasets, producing QA pairs whose answers are drawn from patient-level metadata; there is no equation or claim in which an output is defined in terms of itself. The benchmark's headline result — that general audio-language models transfer poorly to respiratory-audio QA — is obtained by evaluating Pengi, a multimodal classifier, and a CaReAQA-style baseline on held-out QA pairs, with scores measured against the source-dataset labels. These labels and the audio are external inputs, not outputs of the paper's own construction. Self-citations appear as source data (e.g., COVID-19 Sounds [18]), as audio-encoder components (OPERA-CT, cited via [6]), and as prior respiratory QA work (CaReAQA [17]), but none of these is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or used to define the benchmark's conclusions; they are reusable tools and data. The skeptical concern that metadata-derived questions (e.g., age, device, SNR) are unanswerable from audio alone is a task-design and validity limitation, not a circularity: the model is still being tested on questions whose answers are not contained in the model's inputs, and the reported aggregate scores may conflate audio understanding with prior memorization, but this does not make any prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no central claim reduces to a self-citation. The paper is self-contained as a benchmark contribution, with the usual external-validity risks lying in label noise and question realism rather than in circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim (benchmark plus failure modes) rests on hand-chosen design decisions and domain assumptions rather than on a derivation. I count the evaluation-subset size, split ratio, decoding settings, and balancing scheme as free parameters, and the self-report/template validity assumptions as ad hoc.

free parameters (4)
  • Evaluation subset size = ≈100,000 train / 15,000 val / 15,000 test QA instances
    The actual benchmark protocol is run on a label-balanced subset chosen by the authors (Sec. 3.3), not on the full 9M collection; results may not represent full-collection behavior.
  • Train/val/test split ratio = 70/15/15
    Used when original dataset protocols are unavailable (Sec. 2.2); a hand-chosen structural choice.
  • Pengi decoding hyperparameters = beam size=3, temperature=1.0, max generation length=30, batch size=8
    Zero-shot generation settings chosen for the general audio-language baseline (Sec. 3.1); no sensitivity analysis.
  • Label-balanced sampling = within each attribute
    Sampling performed within each attribute to construct the evaluation subset (Sec. 3.3); this changes label priors relative to the full collection.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Source-dataset metadata labels, including self-reported symptoms and statuses, are treated as ground truth for clinical correctness scoring.
    Sec. 2.1 acknowledges some labels are self-reported, yet Sec. 3.2 defines task-level clinical correctness against these labels; if self-reports are noisy, benchmark scores do not measure clinical accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper Template-generated questions and answers over structured metadata are a valid proxy for real user/clinician questions about respiratory audio.
    Sec. 2.2 programmatically instantiates 207 unique questions into 9M pairs; no human validation or user study shows these match realistic interaction patterns.
  • domain assumption Acoustic signatures (wheeze, crackle, timing) carry recoverable signal about the benchmarked attributes.
    Introduction and audio-only SVM baseline (Sec. 3.1) rely on this domain assumption; the audio-only baseline's modest performance supports it for some attributes.
  • domain assumption BERTScore is an acceptable measure of semantic correctness for generated answers.
    Sec. 3.2 adopts BERTScore as text-level fidelity; standard metric, but high BERTScore with near-zero task accuracy shows it is not sufficient alone.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8601 in / 12692 out tokens · 120852 ms · 2026-08-03T04:33:43.309051+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

As conversational multimodal AI tools are increasingly adopted to process patient data for health assessment, robust benchmarks are needed to measure progress and expose failure modes under realistic conditions. Despite the importance of respiratory audio for mobile health screening, respiratory audio question answering remains underexplored, with existing studies evaluated narrowly and lacking real-world heterogeneity across modalities, devices, and question types. We hence introduce the \textbf{Respiratory-Audio Question-Answering (RA-QA) benchmark}, including a standardized data generation pipeline, a comprehensive multimodal QA collection, and a unified evaluation protocol. RA-QA harmonizes public RA datasets into a collection of 9 million format-diverse QA pairs covering diagnostic and contextual attributes. We benchmark general audio-language models as well as domain-specific architectures, establishing reproducible reference points and showing how current approaches fail under heterogeneity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18452 by Cecilia Mascolo, Domenico Talia, Gaia A. Bertolino, Tong Xia, Yuwei Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: RA-QA question formats: the same respiratory audio recording is queried as open-ended, multiple-choice, or single￾verify (yes/no), each requiring a different answer style. models for respiratory outcome prediction [7]. However, most prior work treats respiratory audio as a single-output prediction problem, producing a predefined label or score per recording (e.g., diagnosis or symptom presence), rather tha… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Introduction As large language models are increasingly used in clinical- facing settings, rigorous and realisticbenchmarkshave become essential to quantify both capabilities and failure modes un- der conditions that reflect real workflows (e.g., multi-turn, di- verse users, and safety-critical criteria) [1]. Accordingly, evalu- ations should stress-test m...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    It explic- itly operationalizes a dataset-to-QA transformation process, en- abling reproducible conversion of diverse respiratory datasets into a unified multimodal QA format

    RA-QA Data Curation The RA-QA pipeline converts heterogeneous respiratory audio datasets into a unified, QA-ready benchmark by harmonizing clinical attributes, standardizing metadata, and automatically generating natural language question-answer pairs. It explic- itly operationalizes a dataset-to-QA transformation process, en- abling reproducible conversi...

    2046

  3. [3]

    RA-QA Baseline Benchmarking RA-QA benchmarking provides baseline evaluations for respi- ratory audio question answering. Our goal is to quantify (i) how much clinically relevant information can be recovered from res- piratory acoustics and question text in isolation, and (ii) how well general multimodal models transfer to clinically grounded respiratory Q...

  4. [4]

    Results Unimodal baselines.Table 2 reports random/majority as lower-bound references and shows that the dataset- and task- specific audio-only baseline substantially improves over these priors, especially for open-ended and multiple-choice discrim- inative questions (MacroF10.49and0.57), indicating anin- formativerespiratory acoustic signal. We note that ...

  5. [5]

    Conclusion We introducedRA-QA, an open-sourcecollection and bench- marking systemfor respiratory audio question answering, com- prising a standardized data-curation pipeline, leakage-aware splits, and a unified evaluation protocol. RA-QA is designed to stress-test models under realistic heterogeneity, including mul- tiple question formats over the same re...

  6. [6]

    Introducing healthbench,

    OpenAI, “Introducing healthbench,” https://openai.com/index/ healthbench/, 2025, accessed 2026-02-23

    2025

  7. [7]

    Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making,

    P. Hager, F. Jungmann, R. Holland, K. Bhagat, I. Hubrecht, M. Knauer, J. Vielhauer, M. Makowski, R. Braren, G. Kaissis, and D. Rueckert, “Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making,”Nature Medicine, vol. 30, no. 9, p. 2613–2622, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Chronic respiratory diseases: a global view,

    W. Labaki and M. Han, “Chronic respiratory diseases: a global view,”The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, vol. 8, pp. 531–533, 06 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Analysis of res- piratory sounds: state of the art,

    S. Reichert, R. Gass, C. Brandt, and E. Andr `es, “Analysis of res- piratory sounds: state of the art,”Clin. Med. Circ. Respirat. Pulm. Med., vol. 2, pp. 45–58, May 2008

    2008

  10. [10]

    Definition of terms for applications of respiratory sounds,

    A. Sovij ¨arvi, F. Dalmasso, J. Vanderschoot, L. Malmberg, G. Righini, and S. Stoneman, “Definition of terms for applications of respiratory sounds,”Eur Respir Rev, vol. 10, 11 1999

    1999

  11. [11]

    Towards open respiratory acoustic foundation models: Pretraining and benchmarking,

    Y . Zhang, T. Xia, J. Han, Y . Wu, G. Rizos, Y . Liu, M. Mosuily, J. Chauhan, and C. Mascolo, “Towards open respiratory acoustic foundation models: Pretraining and benchmarking,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Respllm: Unifying audio and text with multimodal llms for generalized respiratory health prediction,

    Y . Zhang, T. Xia, A. Saeed, and C. Mascolo, “Respllm: Unifying audio and text with multimodal llms for generalized respiratory health prediction,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.05361

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    emrqa: A large corpus for question answering on electronic medical records,

    A. Pampari, P. Raghavan, J. Liang, and J. Peng, “emrqa: A large corpus for question answering on electronic medical records,”

  14. [14]

    Pengi: An Audio Language Model for Audio Tasks,

    S. Deshmukh, B. Elizalde, R. Singh, and H. Wang, “Pengi: An Audio Language Model for Audio Tasks,” Jan. 2024, arXiv:2305.11834 [eess]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/ abs/2305.11834

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    MedRedQA for Medical Consumer Question Answering: Dataset, Tasks, and Neural Baselines,

    V . Nguyen, S. Karimi, M. Rybinski, and Z. Xing, “MedRedQA for Medical Consumer Question Answering: Dataset, Tasks, and Neural Baselines,” inProceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Nusa ...

    2023

  16. [16]

    ECG-QA: A Comprehensive Question Answering Dataset Combined With Electrocardiogram,

    J. Oh, G. Lee, S. Bae, J.-m. Kwon, and E. Choi, “ECG-QA: A Comprehensive Question Answering Dataset Combined With Electrocardiogram,” Oct. 2023, issue: arXiv:2306.15681 arXiv: 2306.15681 [q-bio]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2306.15681

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    VQA-Med: Overview of the Medical Visual Question Answer- ing Task at ImageCLEF 2019

    A. B. Abacha, S. A. Hasan, V . V . Datla, J. Liu, and H. Muller, “VQA-Med: Overview of the Medical Visual Question Answer- ing Task at ImageCLEF 2019.”

    2019

  18. [18]

    OmniMedVQA: A New Large-Scale Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LVLM,

    Y . Hu, T. Li, Q. Lu, W. Shao, J. He, Y . Qiao, and P. Luo, “OmniMedVQA: A New Large-Scale Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LVLM,” Apr. 2024, arXiv:2402.09181 [eess]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09181

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering,

    Q. Jin, B. Dhingra, Z. Liu, W. W. Cohen, and X. Lu, “PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering,” Sep. 2019, issue: arXiv:1909.06146 arXiv: 1909.06146 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    The COUGHVID crowdsourcing dataset, a corpus for the study of large-scale cough analysis algorithms,

    L. Orlandic, T. Teijeiro, and D. Atienza, “The COUGHVID crowdsourcing dataset, a corpus for the study of large-scale cough analysis algorithms,”Scientific Data, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 156, Jun. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41597-021-00937-4

    2021

  21. [21]

    SpeechVerse: A Large-scale Generalizable Audio Language Model,

    N. Das, S. Dingliwal, S. Ronanki, R. Paturi, Z. Huang, P. Mathur, J. Yuan, D. Bekal, X. Niu, S. M. Jayanthi, X. Li, K. Mundnich, M. Sunkara, S. Srinivasan, K. J. Han, and K. Kirchhoff, “SpeechVerse: A Large-scale Generalizable Audio Language Model,” May 2024, issue: arXiv:2405.08295 arXiv: 2405.08295 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08295

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Qwen-Audio: Advancing Universal Audio Understanding via Unified Large-Scale Audio-Language Models,

    Y . Chu, J. Xu, X. Zhou, Q. Yang, S. Zhang, Z. Yan, C. Zhou, and J. Zhou, “Qwen-Audio: Advancing Universal Audio Understanding via Unified Large-Scale Audio-Language Models,” Dec. 2023, issue: arXiv:2311.07919 arXiv: 2311.07919 [eess]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07919

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Careaqa: A cardiac and respiratory audio question answering model for open-ended diagnostic reasoning,

    T.-N. Wang, L.-L. Chen, N. Zeghidour, and A. Saeed, “Careaqa: A cardiac and respiratory audio question answering model for open-ended diagnostic reasoning,” no. arXiv:2505.01199, 2025, arXiv:2505.01199 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.01199

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    COVID-19 sounds: A large-scale audio dataset for digital respiratory screening,

    T. Xia, D. Spathis, C. Brown, J. Ch, A. Grammenos, J. Han, A. Hasthanasombat, E. Bondareva, T. Dang, A. Floto, P. Cicuta, and C. Mascolo, “COVID-19 sounds: A large-scale audio dataset for digital respiratory screening,” inThirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2), 2021. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2021

  25. [25]

    Audio-based ai classifiers show no evidence of improved covid- 19 screening over simple symptoms checkers,

    H. Coppock, G. Nicholson, I. Kiskin, V . Koutra, K. Baker, J. Budd, R. Payne, E. Karoune, D. Hurley, A. Titcomb, S. Egglestone, A. T. Ca ˜nadas, L. Butler, R. Jersakova, J. Mellor, S. Patel, T. Thornley, P. Diggle, S. Richardson, J. Packham, B. W. Schuller, D. Pigoli, S. Gilmour, S. Roberts, and C. Holmes, “Audio-based ai classifiers show no evidence of i...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    A dataset of lung sounds recorded from the chest wall using an electronic stethoscope,

    M. Fraiwan, L. Fraiwan, B. Khassawneh, and A. Ibnian, “A dataset of lung sounds recorded from the chest wall using an electronic stethoscope,”Data in Brief, vol. 35, p. 106913, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S2352340921001979

    2021

  27. [27]

    An open access database for the evaluation of respiratory sound classification algorithms,

    B. M. Rocha, D. Filos, L. Mendes, G. Serbes, S. Ulukaya, Y . P. Kahya, N. Jakovljevic, T. L. Turukalo, I. M. V ogiatzis, E. Perantoni, E. Kaimakamis, P. Natsiavas, A. Oliveira, C. J ´acome, A. Marques, N. Maglaveras, R. Pedro Paiva, I. Chouvarda, and P. de Carvalho, “An open access database for the evaluation of respiratory sound classification algorithms...

    2019

  28. [28]

    Deep learning based respiratory sound analysis for detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

    A. Srivastava, S. Jain, R. Miranda, S. Patil, S. Pandya, and K. Kotecha, “Deep learning based respiratory sound analysis for detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,”PeerJ Com- puter Science, vol. 7, 02 2021

    2021

  29. [29]

    Mmlung: Moving closer to practical lung health estimation using smartphones,

    M. Mosuily, L. Welch, and J. Chauhan, “Mmlung: Moving closer to practical lung health estimation using smartphones,” inInter- speech 2023, 2023, pp. 2333–2337

    2023

  30. [30]

    Coswara: A respiratory sounds and symptoms dataset for remote screening of SARS- CoV-2 infection,

    D. Bhattacharya, N. K. Sharma, D. Dutta, S. R. Chetupalli, P. Mote, S. Ganapathy, C. Chandrakiran, S. Nori, K. K. Suhail, S. Gonuguntla, and M. Alagesan, “Coswara: A respiratory sounds and symptoms dataset for remote screening of SARS- CoV-2 infection,”Scientific Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 397, Jun. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles...

    2023

  31. [31]

    A snoring sound dataset for body position recognition: Collection, annotation, and analysis,

    L. Xiao, X. Yang, X. Li, W. Tu, X. Chen, W. Yi, J. Lin, Y . Yang, and Y . Ren, “A snoring sound dataset for body position recognition: Collection, annotation, and analysis,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13346

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [33]

    An evaluation of heart rate monitoring with in-ear microphones under motion,

    K.-J. Butkow, T. Dang, A. Ferlini, D. Ma, Y . Liu, and C. Mascolo, “An evaluation of heart rate monitoring with in-ear microphones under motion,”Pervasive and Mobile Computing, vol. 100, p. 101913, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1574119224000397

    2024

  33. [34]

    Multimedia respiratory database (respiratorydatabase@tr): Aus- cultation sounds and chest x-rays,

    G. Altan, Y . Kutlu, Y . Garbi, A. O. Pekmezci, and S. Nural, “Multimedia respiratory database (respiratorydatabase@tr): Aus- cultation sounds and chest x-rays,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.10946

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [35]

    Sup- port vector machines,

    M. Hearst, S. Dumais, E. Osuna, J. Platt, and B. Scholkopf, “Sup- port vector machines,”IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Appli- cations, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 18–28, 1998

    1998

  35. [36]

    Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert,

    T. Zhang, V . Kishore, F. Wu, K. Q. Weinberger, and Y . Artzi, “Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09675

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [2018]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00732

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00732

    Pith/arXiv arXiv