A Scoping Review of Artificial Intelligence Detection of Voice Pathology: Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Survey the current literature on artificial intelligence (AI) applications for detecting and classifying vocal pathology using voice recordings, and identify challenges and opportunities for advancing the field forward. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. REVIEW METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Peer-reviewed journal articles in the English language were included if they used an AI approach to detect or classify pathological voices using voice recordings from patients diagnosed with vocal pathologies. RESULTS: Eighty-two studies were included in the review between the years 2000 and 2023, with an increase in publication rate from one study per year in 2012 to 10 per year in 2022. Seventy-two studies (88%) were aimed at detecting the presence of voice pathology, 24 (29%) at classifying the type of voice pathology present, and 4 (5%) at assessing pathological voice using the Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, and Strain scale. Thirty-six databases were used to collect and analyze speech samples. Fourteen articles (17%) did not provide information about their AI model validation methodology. Zero studies moved beyond the preclinical and offline AI model development stages. Zero studies specified following a reporting guideline for AI research. CONCLUSION: There is rising interest in the potential of AI technology to aid the detection and classification of voice pathology. Three challenges-and areas of opportunities-for advancing this research are heterogeneity of databases, lack of clinical validation studies, and inconsistent reporting.
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 | 0.032 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".