ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Identifying bias in models that detect vocal fold paralysis from audio recordings using explainable machine learning and clinician ratings.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Detecting voice disorders from voice recordings could allow for frequent, remote, and low-cost screening before costly clinical visits and a more invasive laryngoscopy examination. Our goals were to detect unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP) from voice recordings using machine learning, to identify which acoustic variables were important for prediction to increase trust, and to determine model performance relative to clinician performance. Methods: Patients with confirmed UVFP through endoscopic examination (N=77) and controls with normal voices matched for age and sex (N=77) were included. Voice samples were elicited by reading the Rainbow Passage and sustaining phonation of the vowel "a". Four machine learning models of differing complexity were used. SHapley Additive explanations (SHAP) was used to identify important features. Results: The highest median bootstrapped ROC AUC score was 0.87 and beat clinician's performance (range: 0.74 - 0.81) based on the recordings. Recording durations were different between UVFP recordings and controls due to how that data was originally processed when storing, which we can show can classify both groups. And counterintuitively, many UVFP recordings had higher intensity than controls, when UVFP patients tend to have weaker voices, revealing a dataset-specific bias which we mitigate in an additional analysis. Conclusion: We demonstrate that recording biases in audio duration and intensity created dataset-specific differences between patients and controls, which models used to improve classification. Furthermore, clinician's ratings provide further evidence that patients were over-projecting their voices and being recorded at a higher amplitude signal than controls. Interestingly, after matching audio duration and removing variables associated with intensity in order to mitigate the biases, the models were able to achieve a similar high performance. We provide a set of recommendations to avoid bias when building and evaluating machine learning models for screening in laryngology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.