Voice-guided Orchestrated Intelligence for Clinical Evaluation (VOICE): A Voice AI Agent System for Prehospital Stroke Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a voice-driven artificial intelligence (AI) system that guides anyone—from paramedics to family members—through expert-level stroke evaluations using natural conversation, while also enabling smartphone video capture of key examination components for documentation and potential expert review. This addresses a critical gap in emergency care: current stroke recognition by first responders is inconsistent and often inaccurate, with sensitivity for stroke detection as low as 58%, causing life-threatening delays in treatment. Three non-medical volunteers used our AI system to assess ten simulated stroke patients, including cases with likely large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes and stroke-like conditions, while we measured diagnostic accuracy, completion times, user confidence, and expert physician review of the AI-generated reports. The AI system correctly identified 84% of individual stroke signs and detected 75% of likely LVOs, completing evaluations in just over 6 minutes. Users reported high confidence (median 4.5/5) and ease of use (mean 4.67/5). The system successfully identified 86% of actual strokes but also incorrectly flagged 2 of 3 non-stroke cases as strokes. When an expert physician reviewed the AI reports with videos, they identified the correct diagnosis in 100% of cases, but felt confident enough to make preliminary treatment decisions in only 40% of cases due to observed AI errors including incorrect scoring and false information. While the current system’s limitations necessitate human oversight, ongoing rapid advancements in speech-to-speech AI models suggest that future versions are poised to enable highly accurate assessments. Achieving human-level voice interaction could transform emergency medical care, putting expert-informed assessment capabilities in everyone’s hands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".