Cited by 25Voice and Speech DisordersArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareAI in cancer detection

The Use of Deep Learning Software in the Detection of Voice Disorders: A Systematic Review

Open access
Barlow, Joshua, Sragi, Zara, Rivera‐Rivera, Gabriel, Al‐Awady, Abdurrahman, Daşdöğen, Ümit, Courey, Mark S., Kirke, Diana N.·2024·Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery

Abstract

Objective: To summarize the use of deep learning in the detection of voice disorders using acoustic and laryngoscopic input, compare specific neural networks in terms of accuracy, and assess their effectiveness compared to expert clinical visual examination. Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central. Review Methods: Databases were screened through November 11, 2023 for relevant studies. The inclusion criteria required studies to utilize a specified deep learning method, use laryngoscopy or acoustic input, and measure accuracy of binary classification between healthy patients and those with voice disorders. Results: Thirty‐four studies met the inclusion criteria, with 18 focusing on voice analysis, 15 on imaging analysis, and 1 both. Across the 18 acoustic studies, 21 programs were used for identification of organic and functional voice disorders. These technologies included 10 convolutional neural networks (CNNs), 6 multilayer perceptrons (MLPs), and 5 other neural networks. The binary classification systems yielded a mean accuracy of 89.0% overall, including 93.7% for MLP programs and 84.5% for CNNs. Among the 15 imaging analysis studies, a total of 23 programs were utilized, resulting in a mean accuracy of 91.3%. Specifically, the twenty CNNs achieved a mean accuracy of 92.6% compared to 83.0% for the 3 MLPs. Conclusion: Deep learning models were shown to be highly accurate in the detection of voice pathology, with CNNs most effective for assessing laryngoscopy images and MLPs most effective for assessing acoustic input. While deep learning methods outperformed expert clinical exam in limited comparisons, further studies integrating external validation are necessary.

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/ohn.636

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Diagnostic performance ranging from 90% to 99% has been reported across acoustic and laryngeal image-based tasks.

    “Diagnostic performance ranging from 90% to 99% has been reported across acoustic and laryngeal image-based tasks [26,30,31,32,33,34].”
  • CNNs have been widely applied to vocal spectrograms and laryngoscopic images, while recurrent and bidirectional architectures capture temporal dynamics of pathological phonation.

    “Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been widely applied to vocal spectrograms and laryngoscopic images [24,33], while recurrent and bidirectional architectures capture temporal dynamics of pathological phonation [16,56,57].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barlow, J., Sragi, Z., Rivera‐Rivera, G., Al‐Awady, A., Daşdöğen, Ü., Courey, M. S., & Kirke, D. N.
Affiliations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
Barlow, Joshua
Venue
Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-03
Volume
170
Issue
6
Pages
1531-1543
ISSN
  • 0161-6439 (ISSN-L)
  • 0194-5998
  • 1097-6817
OpenAlex
W4390543736
Cited by
25
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Otolaryngology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
voice disorders, deep learning, acoustic voice analysis, convolutional neural networks, multilayer perceptron, automated diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Humans, Laryngoscopy, Software, Voice Disorders, Neural Networks, Computer

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