Acoustic Analysis and Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Smartphone-Recorded Voice Segments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the potential of voice analysis as a prescreening or monitoring tool for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by examining the differences in voice recordings between nondiabetic and T2DM individuals. Total 267 participants diagnosed as nondiabetic (79 women and 113 men) or T2DM (18 women and 57 men) on the basis of American Diabetes Association guidelines were recruited in India between August 30, 2021 and June 30, 2022. Using a smartphone application, participants recorded a fixed phrase up to 6 times daily for 2 weeks, resulting in 18,465 recordings. Fourteen acoustic features were extracted from each recording to analyze differences between nondiabetic and T2DM individuals and create a prediction methodology for T2DM status. Significant differences were found between voice recordings of nondiabetic and T2DM men and women, both in the entire dataset and in an age-matched and body mass index (BMI [calculated as the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared])-matched sample. The highest predictive accuracy was achieved by pitch (P<.0001), pitch SD (P<.0001), and relative average pertubation jitter (P=.02) for women, and intensity (P<.0001) and 11-point amplitude perturbation quotient shimmer (apq11, P<0.0001) for men. Incorporating these features with age and BMI, the optimal prediction models achieved accuracies of 0.75±0.22 for women and 0.70±0.10 for men through 5-fold cross-validation in the age-matched and BMI-matched sample. Overall, vocal changes occur in individuals with T2DM compared with those without T2DM. Voice analysis shows potential as a prescreening or monitoring tool for T2DM, particularly when combined with other risk factors associated with the condition. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: CTRI/2021/08/035957
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".