Cited by 34Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Identifying acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using patient-reported symptoms and cough feature analysis

Open access
Claxton, Scott, Porter, Paul, Brisbane, Joanna, Bear, Natasha, Wood, Javan, Peltonen, Vesa, Della, Phillip, Smith, Claire +1 more·2021·npj Digital Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are commonly encountered in the primary care setting, though the accurate and timely diagnosis is problematic. Using technology like that employed in speech recognition technology, we developed a smartphone-based algorithm for rapid and accurate diagnosis of AECOPD. The algorithm incorporates patient-reported features (age, fever, and new cough), audio data from five coughs and can be deployed by novice users. We compared the accuracy of the algorithm to expert clinical assessment. In patients with known COPD, the algorithm correctly identified the presence of AECOPD in 82.6% (95% CI: 72.9–89.9%) of subjects ( n = 86). The absence of AECOPD was correctly identified in 91.0% (95% CI: 82.4–96.3%) of individuals ( n = 78). The diagnostic agreement was maintained in milder cases of AECOPD (PPA: 79.2%, 95% CI: 68.0–87.8%), who typically comprise the cohort presenting to primary care. The algorithm may aid early identification of AECOPD and be incorporated in patient self-management plans.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-021-00472-x

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other examples of virtual health coaches have tackled common conditions such as migraine, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    “Other examples of virtual health coaches have tackled common conditions such as migraine, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, among others 76 .”

    From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Methods describe a smartphone-based diagnostic algorithm for COPD exacerbations and mention acute asthma among the conditions targeted by the broader program. The Discussion describes possible use in telehealth or self-management, but does not describe the algorithm as a virtual health coach; the paper also provides no example involving migraine. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most of these applications have been tested only on small observational studies, and much more research, including randomized clinical trials, are needed to evaluate their benefits.

    “Unfortunately, most of these applications have been tested only on small observational studies, and much more research, including randomized clinical trials, are needed to evaluate their benefits.”

    From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes this app’s evaluation as a single-site clinical study and identifies limits to its generalizability and at-home use. That supports caution about this application, but the paper does not establish that most applications have been tested only in small observational studies or call specifically for randomized clinical trials to evaluate their benefits. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Claxton, S., Porter, P., Brisbane, J., Bear, N., Wood, J., Peltonen, V., Della, P., Smith, C., & Abeyratne, U.
Affiliations
  • GenesisCare (AU)
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • The University of Notre Dame Australia (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Porter, Paul
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2021-07-02
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
107-107
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3175291108
Cited by
34
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Phonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
COPD exacerbations, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smartphone-based diagnostics, patient-reported symptoms, speech recognition, fever, primary care, early diagnosis, patient self-management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review