7 research outputs found

    Using Deep Neural Networks for Speaker Diarisation

    Get PDF
    Speaker diarisation answers the question “who spoke when?” in an audio recording. The input may vary, but a system is required to output speaker labelled segments in time. Typical stages are Speech Activity Detection (SAD), speaker segmentation and speaker clustering. Early research focussed on Conversational Telephone Speech (CTS) and Broadcast News (BN) domains before the direction shifted to meetings and, more recently, broadcast media. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) supplied data through the Multi-Genre Broadcast (MGB) Challenge in 2015 which showed the difficulties speaker diarisation systems have on broadcast media data. Diarisation is typically an unsupervised task which does not use auxiliary data or information to enhance a system. However, methods which do involve supplementary data have shown promise. Five semi-supervised methods are investigated which use a combination of inputs: different channel types and transcripts. The methods involve Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) for SAD, DNNs trained for channel detection, transcript alignment, and combinations of these approaches. However, the methods are only applicable when datasets contain the required inputs. Therefore, a method involving a pretrained Speaker Separation Deep Neural Network (ssDNN) is investigated which is applicable to every dataset. This technique performs speaker clustering and speaker segmentation using DNNs successfully for meeting data and with mixed results for broadcast media. The task of diarisation focuses on two aspects: accurate segments and speaker labels. The Diarisation Error Rate (DER) does not evaluate the segmentation quality as it does not measure the number of correctly detected segments. Other metrics exist, such as boundary and purity measures, but these also mask the segmentation quality. An alternative metric is presented based on the F-measure which considers the number of hypothesis segments correctly matched to reference segments. A deeper insight into the segment quality is shown through this metric

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore