Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Feature Scaling Beats Architecture Choice in Offline Respiratory Screening for Low-Resource Clinics

Summary

A study on five-class respiratory sound classification finds that standardizing SVM features yields a 27-point macro recall swing—far larger than any gap between classical and deep models—while classical models avoid a 449 MB PyTorch runtime, making them attractive for GPU-less clinics.

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Abubakar Chilala, Cleophas Kadima, Innocent Anyaele, Victor Olufemi
Feature Scaling Beats Architecture Choice in Offline Respiratory Screening for Low-Resource Clinics
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 12 Oct 2026]

Title:Feature Scaling Beats Architecture Choice in Offline Respiratory Screening for Low-Resource Clinics

View a PDF of the paper titled Feature Scaling Beats Architecture Choice in Offline Respiratory Screening for Low-Resource Clinics, by Abubakar Chilala and 2 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Deep models are the usual choice for respiratory sound classification, but in clinics without GPUs or connectivity that choice carries a cost. We compare classical and deep classifiers on a five-class respiratory-sound corpus of 1,211 clips (asthma, COPD, pneumonia, Bronchial, healthy) from 201 patient groups, with a 3.86:1 class imbalance, using pre-registered patient-grouped cross-validation (25 runs per configuration). An SVM over 30 summary features (MFCC, ZCR and RMS statistics) reaches macro recall 0.78 and 0.71 recall on the rarest class. A 1.13M-parameter convolutional recurrent network over log-Mel spectrograms reaches 0.75 to 0.77, and no difference between model families is resolved. The largest single effect we measure is a preprocessing effect rather than an architectural one. Standardizing the SVM's features, a routine step for RBF kernels, moves its macro recall from 0.51 to 0.78, a 27-point swing wider than any gap between model families here. Augmentation did not help: SMOTE, waveform augmentation and SpecAugment have no measurable effect. Latency does not separate the models (51 to 74 ms per clip on a CPU-only laptop), but the classical models avoid a 449 MB PyTorch runtime. Clip-level splits, which let a patient's recordings fall on both sides, inflate macro recall by 7.5 to 9.8 points. Recording source is strongly tied to label (Cramer's V = 0.65 between native sampling rate and class), and in an exploratory analysis clips recorded at a class's minority rate are mostly assigned to classes typical of that rate; we state this confound as the paper's main limitation.

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Sound (cs.SD)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.33030 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.33030v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.33030

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Abubakar Chilala [view email] [v1] Mon, 12 Oct 2026 17:19:47 UTC (455 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Feature Scaling Beats Architecture Choice in Offline Respiratory Screening for Low-Resource Clinics, by Abubakar Chilala and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI cs.SD

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • Feature standardization moves SVM macro recall from 0.51 to 0.78, exceeding any architecture gap
  • Classical SVM matches a 1.13M-parameter convolutional recurrent network (0.78 vs 0.75–0.77)
  • SMOTE, waveform augmentation, and SpecAugment show no measurable benefit
  • Recording source strongly confounds labels (Cramer's V = 0.65), the paper's main limitation

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.