On the Impact of Voice Anonymization on Speech Diagnostic Applications: A Case Study on COVID-19 Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With advances seen in deep learning, voice-based applications are burgeoning, ranging from personal assistants, affective computing, to remote disease diagnostics. As the voice contains both linguistic and para-linguistic information (e.g., vocal pitch, intonation, speech rate, loudness), there is growing interest in voice anonymization to preserve speaker privacy and identity. Voice privacy challenges have emerged over the last few years and focus has been placed on removing speaker identity while keeping linguistic content intact. For affective computing and disease monitoring applications, however, the para-linguistic content may be more critical. Unfortunately, the effects that anonymization may have on these systems are still largely unknown. In this paper, we fill this gap and focus on one particular health monitoring application: speech-based COVID-19 diagnosis. We test three anonymization methods and their impact on five different state-of-the-art COVID-19 diagnostic systems using three public datasets. We validate the effectiveness of the anonymization methods, compare their computational complexity, and quantify the impact across different testing scenarios for both within- and across-dataset conditions. Additionally, we provided a comprehensive evaluation of the importance of different speech aspects for diagnostics and showed how they are affected by different types of anonymizers. Lastly, we show the benefits of using anonymized external data as a data augmentation tool to help recover some of the COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy loss seen with anonymization.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".