Current Practices in Voice Data Collection and Limitations to Voice <scp>AI</scp> Research: A National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Accuracy and validity of voice AI algorithms rely on substantial quality voice data. Although commensurable amounts of voice data are captured daily in voice centers across North America, there is no standardized protocol for acoustic data management, which limits the usability of these datasets for voice artificial intelligence (AI) research. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to capture current practices of voice data collection, storage, analysis, and perceived limitations to collaborative voice research. METHODS: A 30-question online survey was developed with expert guidance from the voicecollab.ai members, an international collaborative of voice AI researchers. The survey was disseminated via REDCap to an estimated 200 practitioners at North American voice centers. Survey questions assessed respondents' current practices in terms of acoustic data collection, storage, and retrieval as well as limitations to collaborative voice research. RESULTS: Seventy-two respondents completed the survey of which 81.7% were laryngologists and 18.3% were speech language pathologists (SLPs). Eighteen percent of respondents reported seeing 40%-60% and 55% reported seeing >60 patients with voice disorders weekly (conservative estimate of over 4000 patients/week). Only 28% of respondents reported utilizing standardized protocols for collection and storage of acoustic data. Although, 87% of respondents conduct voice research, only 38% of respondents report doing so on a multi-institutional level. Perceived limitations to conducting collaborative voice research include lack of standardized methodology for collection (30%) and lack of human resources to prepare and label voice data adequately (55%). CONCLUSION: To conduct large-scale multi-institutional voice research with AI, there is a pertinent need for standardization of acoustic data management, as well as an infrastructure for secure and efficient data sharing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 134:1333-1339, 2024.
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 | 0.052 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".