Cited by 90Phonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesCOVID-19 diagnosis using AISARS-CoV-2 detection and testing

Sounds of COVID-19: exploring realistic performance of audio-based digital testing

Open access
Han, Jing, Xia, Tong, Spathis, Dimitris, Bondareva, Erika, Brown, Chloë, Chauhan, Jagmohan, Dang, Ting, Grammenos, Andreas +4 more·2022·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

To identify Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases efficiently, affordably, and at scale, recent work has shown how audio (including cough, breathing and voice) based approaches can be used for testing. However, there is a lack of exploration of how biases and methodological decisions impact these tools’ performance in practice. In this paper, we explore the realistic performance of audio-based digital testing of COVID-19. To investigate this, we collected a large crowdsourced respiratory audio dataset through a mobile app, alongside symptoms and COVID-19 test results. Within the collected dataset, we selected 5240 samples from 2478 English-speaking participants and split them into participant-independent sets for model development and validation. In addition to controlling the language, we also balanced demographics for model training to avoid potential acoustic bias. We used these audio samples to construct an audio-based COVID-19 prediction model. The unbiased model took features extracted from breathing, coughs and voice signals as predictors and yielded an AUC-ROC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65–0.77). We further explored several scenarios with different types of unbalanced data distributions to demonstrate how biases and participant splits affect the performance. With these different, but less appropriate, evaluation strategies, the performance could be overestimated, reaching an AUC up to 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85–0.95) in some circumstances. We found that an unrealistic experimental setting can result in misleading, sometimes over-optimistic, performance. Instead, we reported complete and reliable results on crowd-sourced data, which would allow medical professionals and policy makers to accurately assess the value of this technology and facilitate its deployment.

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/s41746-021-00553-x

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Breathing and cough sounds contain clinically relevant information and are highly related to pulmonary health.

    “Breathing and cough are two types of sounds that contain clinically relevant information and highly related to pulmonary health [10,43].”
  • A CNN-based network validated using crowdsourced voice, cough, and breathing sounds yields 0.71 ROC-AUC for COVID-19 detection, suggesting potential of crowdsourced audio for COVID-19 detection.

    “A convolutional neural network (CNN) based network structure is validated using a combination of crowdsourced voice, cough and breathing sounds [10,49]. The system is developed and validated using a total of 2478 participants and yields 0.71 in terms of ROC-AUC, suggesting the potential of crowdsourced audio for COVID-19 detection.”
  • COVID-19 has been studied using voice, breathing, and cough sounds.

    “COVID-19 has been studied using different audio sounds, including voice, breathing and cough sounds [10,29,79,80].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [31]McKight, P. E. & Najab, J. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2010).
  2. [37]Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (San Diego, CA, 2015).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Han, J., Xia, T., Spathis, D., Bondareva, E., Brown, C., Chauhan, J., Dang, T., Grammenos, A., Hasthanasombat, A., Floto, A., Cicuta, P., & Mascolo, C.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Xia, Tong
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2022-01-28
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3175510762
Cited by
90
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 1
FWCI
13.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Apollo
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Cystic Fibrosis Trust
  • H2020 European Research Council (833296)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Phonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, cough, lung sounds, voice analysis, demographic bias, class imbalance, overfitting, overestimation of performance, mobile app data collection

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