On the Impact of Voice Anonymization on Speech Diagnostic Applications: A Case Study on COVID-19 Detection
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it