MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304892862 · doi:10.1002/lary.30432

Developing an Artificial Intelligence Tool to Predict Vocal Cord Pathology in Primary Care Settings

2022· article· en· W4304892862 on OpenAlex
Evan C. Compton, Tim Cruz, Meri Andreassen, Shari Beveridge, Doug Bosch, Derrick R. Randall, Devon Livingstone

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyVocal cord paralysisHead and neckAudiologySpasmodic dysphoniaLaryngeal DiseasesVoice DisorderLarynxPathologyParalysisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic tools for voice disorders are lacking for primary care physicians. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools may add to the armamentarium for physicians, decreasing the time to diagnosis and limiting the burden of dysphonia. METHODS: Voice recordings of patients were collected from 2019 to 2021 using smartphones. The Saarbruecken dataset was included for comparison. Audio files were converted to mel-spectrograms using TensorFlow. Diagnostic categories were created to group pathology, including neurological and muscular disorders, inflammatory, mass lesions, and normal. The samples were further separated into sustained/a/and the rainbow passage. RESULTS: Two hundred three prospective samples and 1131 samples were used from the Saarbruecken database. The AI detected abnormal pathology with an F1-score of 98%. The artificial neural network (ANN) differentiated key pathologies, including unilateral paralysis, laryngitis, adductor spasmodic dysphonia (ADSD), mass lesions, and normal samples with 39%-87% F-1 scores. The Calgary database models had higher F-1 scores in a head-to-head comparison to the Saarbruecken and combined datasets (87% vs. 58% and 50%). The AI outperformed otolaryngologists using a standardized test set of recordings (83% compared to 55% ± 15%). CONCLUSION: An AI tool was created to differentiate pathology by individual or categorical diagnosis with high evaluation metrics. Prospective data should be collected in a controlled fashion to reduce intrinsic variability between recordings. Multi-center data collaborations are imperative to increase the prediction capability of AI tools for detecting vocal cord pathology. We provide proof-of-concept for an AI tool to assist primary care physicians in managing dysphonic patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 133:1952-1960, 2023.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it