4.6 Article

Using K-Nearest Neighbor Classification to Diagnose Abnormal Lung Sounds

期刊

SENSORS
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 13132-13158

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s150613132

关键词

K-means algorithm; K-nearest neighbor; lung sound; MFCC; stethoscope

资金

  1. National Science Council, Executive Yuan, Taipei, Taiwan [NSC 102-2221-E-166-009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A reported 30% of people worldwide have abnormal lung sounds, including crackles, rhonchi, and wheezes. To date, the traditional stethoscope remains the most popular tool used by physicians to diagnose such abnormal lung sounds, however, many problems arise with the use of a stethoscope, including the effects of environmental noise, the inability to record and store lung sounds for follow-up or tracking, and the physician's subjective diagnostic experience. This study has developed a digital stethoscope to help physicians overcome these problems when diagnosing abnormal lung sounds. In this digital system, mel-frequency cepstral coefficients ( MFCCs) were used to extract the features of lung sounds, and then the K-means algorithm was used for feature clustering, to reduce the amount of data for computation. Finally, the K-nearest neighbor method was used to classify the lung sounds. The proposed system can also be used for home care: if the percentage of abnormal lung sound frames is > 30% of the whole test signal, the system can automatically warn the user to visit a physician for diagnosis. We also used bend sensors together with an amplification circuit, Bluetooth, and a microcontroller to implement a respiration detector. The respiratory signal extracted by the bend sensors can be transmitted to the computer via Bluetooth to calculate the respiratory cycle, for real-time assessment. If an abnormal status is detected, the device will warn the user automatically. Experimental results indicated that the error in respiratory cycles between measured and actual values was only 6.8%, illustrating the potential of our detector for home care applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据