Optimizing Voice Sample Quantity and Recording Settings for the Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of acoustic biomarkers derived from speech signals is a promising non-invasive technique for diagnosing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Despite its potential, there remains a critical gap in knowledge regarding the optimal number of voice recordings and recording schedule necessary to achieve effective diagnostic accuracy. Objective: This study aimed to determine the optimal number of voice samples and the ideal recording schedule (frequency and timing), required to maintain the T2DM diagnostic efficacy while reducing patient burden. Methods: We analyzed voice recordings from 78 adults (22 women), including 39 individuals diagnosed with T2DM. Participants had a mean (SD) age of 45.26 (10.63) years and mean (SD) BMI of 28.07 (4.59) kg/m². In total, 5035 voice recordings were collected, with a mean (SD) of 4.91 (1.45) recordings per day; higher adherence was observed among women (5.13 [1.38] vs 4.82 [1.46] in men). We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a previously developed voice-based model under different recording conditions. Segmented linear regression analysis was used to assess model accuracy across varying numbers of voice recordings, and the Kendall tau correlation was used to measure the relationship between recording settings and accuracy. A significance threshold of P<.05 was applied. Results: Our results showed that including up to 6 voice recordings notably improved the model accuracy for T2DM compared to using only one recording, with accuracy increasing from 59.61 to 65.02 for men and from 65.55 to 69.43 for women. Additionally, the day on which voice recordings were collected did not significantly affect model accuracy (P>.05). However, adhering to recording within a single day demonstrated higher accuracy, with accuracy of 73.95% for women and 85.48% for men when all recordings were from the first and second days. Conclusions: This study underscores the optimal voice recording settings to reduce patient burden while maintaining diagnostic efficacy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".