Cited by 2Voice and Speech DisordersArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareAI in cancer detection

A multimodal approach for deep-learning classification of vocal fold pathologies in stroboscopy

Open access
Surapaneni, Sruthi, Kutler, Rachel B., Setzen, Sean A., Kim, Yeo Eun, Yao, Peter, Siddiqui, Sana H., Pitman, Michael J., Sulica, Lucian +3 more·2026·The Laryngoscope

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate a multimodal deep‐learning classifier trained on stroboscopic image, voice, and clinicodemographic data, differentiating between three different vocal fold (VF) states: healthy (HVF), unilateral paralysis (UVFP), and VF lesions, including benign and malignant pathologies. Methods: Patients with UVFP ( n = 54), VF lesions ( n = 42), and HVF ( n = 41) were retrospectively identified. Image frames and voice samples were extracted from stroboscopic videos. Clinicodemographic variables were collected from the electronic health record. Patient‐level data was independently divided into training (80%) and testing (20%). Visual features were extracted using a transformer DINOv2 and acoustic features were extracted using Librosa. All three feature modalities were combined using a custom multilayer perceptron. Unimodality models using only image or only voice data were trained for comparison. Accuracy and F 1 scores were used to validate the models. Results: On a hold‐out test set, the multimodal classifier demonstrated stronger performance (76.9% accuracy) compared to the image classifier (61.5% accuracy) and audio classifier (65.4% accuracy). On an external dataset, the multimodal classifier accuracy dropped to 45%, though still an improvement compared to accuracies of 42% and 31% for the video‐only and audio‐only modalities, respectively. Conclusions: In this proof‐of‐concept study, we successfully developed a multimodal dataset and classifier for VF pathology, demonstrating the potential of combining stroboscopic frames, voice and text data. The multimodal classifier achieved higher accuracy than the image‐only model and audio‐only models. Future models should validate these findings on larger datasets. Level of Evidence: 4

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/lary.70355

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In some cases, accuracy and sensitivity decrease by about 10 to 30 percentage points under external validation conditions.

    “In some cases, accuracy and sensitivity decrease by about 10 to 30 percentage points under these conditions [16,64].”

    From Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Laryngeal Disorders: An Integrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Results (page unavailable) report lower accuracy on the external dataset: the video-only model fell by about 20 percentage points, while the multimodal and audio-only models fell by about 32 and 34 points. The paper does not report a corresponding decrease in diagnostic sensitivity under external validation, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Multimodal architectures integrating stroboscopic images, voice recordings and clinical variables show promise, but accuracy dropped to 45% on external validation, highlighting persistent domain-shift limitations.

    “Multimodal architectures integrating stroboscopic images, voice recordings and clinical variables show promise—Surapaneni et al. reported 76.9% accuracy on a held-out set versus 61.5% (video-only) and 65.4% (audio-only)—yet accuracy dropped to 45% on external validation, highlighting persistent domain-shift limitations [64].”
  • Across the 88 included studies, only 7 studies performed both internal and external validation.

    “Across the 88 included studies, only 7 studies performed both internal and external validation [12,16,26,54,64,65,69].”

    From Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Laryngeal Disorders: An Integrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [64]

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 2

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [24]DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision. Accessed April 16, 2025. https://arxiv.org/html/2304.07193v2

Authors
Surapaneni, S., Kutler, R. B., Setzen, S. A., Kim, Y. E., Yao, P., Siddiqui, S. H., Pitman, M. J., Sulica, L., Elemento, O., Khosravi, P., & Rameau, A.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • St. Luke's University Health Network (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Rameau, Anaïs
Venue
The Laryngoscope
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2026-01-05
Volume
136
Issue
6
Pages
2503-2510
ISSN
  • 0023-852X (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4995
OpenAlex
W7118179956
Cited by
2
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
9.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Laryngoscope (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Bridge2AI, OT2OD032720)
  • National Institute on Aging (K76AG079040)
  • Common Fund (OT2 OD032720)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
vocal fold pathology, stroboscopy, multimodal deep learning, unilateral vocal fold paralysis, vocal fold lesions, benign vocal fold lesions, laryngeal cancer, voice analysis, DINOv2, acoustic features, laryngeal imaging
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Laryngeal Diseases, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Video Recording, Vocal Cord Paralysis, Vocal Cords, Stroboscopy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review