MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413883775 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.113468

The voice of reflux: A systematic review about acoustic voice analysis in reflux patients

2025· review· en· W4413883775 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yves Borbély

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism
KeywordsRefluxAudiologyPsychologyMedicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 27/33 publications confirm reproducible changes in acoustic voice analyses of reflux patients. Most studies worked with recording of vowel /a/ and used the software Kay Elemetrics MDVP. Most frequently analyzed parameters were fundamental frequency, percent/jitter, percent/shimmer. Results were quite inhomogeneous, not least due to the inconsistent study settings (analysis techniques and software), as well as mainly small, monocentric study designs. But acoustic voice analysis has potential; apart from LPRD patients, general GERD patients have hardly been analyzed and new possibilities are expected with technical advances.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207