Automatic adventitious respiratory sound analysis: A systematic review

Abstract

Background: Automatic detection or classification of adventitious sounds is useful to assist physicians in diagnosing or monitoring diseases such as asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and pneumonia. While computerised respiratory sound analysis, specifically for the detection or classification of adventitious sounds, has recently been the focus of an increasing number of studies, a standardised approach and comparison has not been well established.

Objective: To provide a review of existing algorithms for the detection or classification of adventitious respiratory sounds. This systematic review provides a complete summary of methods used in the literature to give a baseline for future works.

Data sources: A systematic review of English articles published between 1938 and 2016, searched using the Scopus (1938-2016) and IEEExplore (1984-2016) databases. Additional articles were further obtained by references listed in the articles found. Search terms included adventitious sound detection, adventitious sound classification, abnormal respiratory sound detection, abnormal respiratory sound classification, wheeze detection, wheeze classification, crackle detection, crackle classification, rhonchi detection, rhonchi classification, stridor detection, stridor classification, pleural rub detection, pleural rub classification, squawk detection, and squawk classification.

Study selection: Only articles were included that focused on adventitious sound detection or classification, based on respiratory sounds, with performance reported and sufficient information provided to be approximately repeated.

Data extraction: Investigators extracted data about the adventitious sound type analysed, approach and level of analysis, instrumentation or data source, location of sensor, amount of data obtained, data management, features, methods, and performance achieved.

Data synthesis: A total of 77 reports from the literature were included in this review. 55 (71.43%) of the studies focused on wheeze, 40 (51.95%) on crackle, 9 (11.69%) on stridor, 9 (11.69%) on rhonchi, and 18 (23.38%) on other sounds such as pleural rub, squawk, as well as the pathology. Instrumentation used to collect data included microphones, stethoscopes, and accelerometers. Several references obtained data from online repositories or book audio CD companions. Detection or classification methods used varied from empirically determined thresholds to more complex machine learning techniques. Performance reported in the surveyed works were converted to accuracy measures for data synthesis.

Limitations: Direct comparison of the performance of surveyed works cannot be performed as the input data used by each was different. A standard validation method has not been established, resulting in different works using different methods and performance measure definitions.

Conclusion: A review of the literature was performed to summarise different analysis approaches, features, and methods used for the analysis. The performance of recent studies showed a high agreement with conventional non-automatic identification. This suggests that automated adventitious sound detection or classification is a promising solution to overcome the limitations of conventional auscultation and to assist in the monitoring of relevant diseases.

Fig 1. Study selection flow diagram.