Voice as a Biomarker in Health‐Tech: Mapping the Evolving Landscape of Voice Biomarkers in the Start‐Up World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The vocal biomarkers market was worth $1.9B in 2021 and is projected to exceed $5.1B by 2028, for a compound annual growth rate of 15.15%. The investment growth demonstrates a blossoming interest in voice and artificial intelligence (AI) as it relates to human health. The objective of this study was to map the current landscape of start-ups utilizing voice as a biomarker in health-tech. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search for start-ups was conducted using Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook. A review of the research was performed using company website, PubMed, and Google Scholar. REVIEW METHODS: A 3-pronged approach was taken to thoroughly map the landscape. First, an internet search was conducted to identify current start-ups focusing on products relating to voice as a biomarker of health. Second, Crunchbase was utilized to collect financial and organizational information. Third, a review of the literature was conducted to analyze publications associated with the identified start-ups. RESULTS: A total of 27 start-up start-ups with a focus in the utilization of AI for developing biomarkers of health from the human voice were identified. Twenty-four of these start-ups garnered $178,808,039 in investments. The 27 start-ups published 194 publications combined, 128 (66%) of which were peer reviewed. CONCLUSION: There is growing enthusiasm surrounding voice as a biomarker in health-tech. Academic drive may complement commercialization to best achieve progress in this arena. More research is needed to accurately capture the entirety of the field, including larger industry players, academic institutions, and non-English content.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".