PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 23, 2025Journal of Clinical Medicine3 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of Deep Neural Networks for the Classification of Adventitious Lung Sounds

View Full Paper
SPSaid Polanco-MartagónYHYahir Hernández-MierMNMarco Aurelio Nuño-Maganda

Key Points

  • ResNet152V2 achieved the highest Average Score of 0.541, indicating competitive model performance.
  • Specificity was high at 0.67 while sensitivity was low at 0.41, highlighting a key performance trade-off.
  • Comparison included various CNN architectures using data augmentation techniques to address class imbalance.
  • Future work needs to focus on improving model sensitivity to ensure patient safety and effective disease screening.

Abstract

Background: Automatic adventitious lung sound classification using deep learning is a promising strategy for objective respiratory disease screening. Evaluating model performance is challenging, particularly with imbalanced clinical datasets. This study compares CNN architectures and proposes a dual-stream classification approach. Methods: Using the public ICBHI 2017 dataset, we compared five pre-trained architectures: VGG16, VGG19, InceptionV3, MobileNetV2, and ResNet152V2. To mitigate class imbalance, we implemented pitch shifting, random shifting, and mixup data augmentation. We also developed and evaluated a novel VGGish-dual-stream network. The primary endpoint was the Average Score (AS), the arithmetic mean of Sensitivity and Specificity. Results: Among benchmarked models, ResNet152V2 achieved the highest AS (0.541), approaching the state-of-the-art range (0.56–0.58). This performance was characterised by a high Specificity (0.67) but low Sensitivity (0.41). Our proposed dual-stream network yielded a more balanced, albeit slightly lower, performance with an AS of 0.508. Conclusions: Standard CNN architectures like ResNet152V2 can achieve competitive classification performance but may exhibit a clinically significant bias towards high specificity at the expense of sensitivity. This trade-off poses a risk of missing pathological events (false negatives). To ensure clinical safety and utility, future work must prioritise strategies that explicitly improve model sensitivity.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Polanco-Martagón et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68f9d6583f37887222492708https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14207427
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper