ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
A Multimodal Approach for Deep-Learning Classification of Vocal Fold Pathologies in Stroboscopy.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Laryngeal Disorders: An Integrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo 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.
methodsPatients 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 F1 scores were used to validate the models.
resultsOn 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.
conclusionsIn 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:
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.