ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Prediction of Aspiration Risk by Using Vocal Biomarkers: Machine Learning Development and Validation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAspiration causes or aggravates a variety of respiratory diseases. Subjective bedside evaluations of aspiration are limited by poor interrater and intrarater reliability, while gold standard diagnostic tests for aspiration, such as video fluoroscopic swallow study and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, are cumbersome or invasive and health care resource-intensive.
objectiveThis study aims to develop and validate a novel machine learning (ML) algorithm that can analyze simple vowel phonations to aid in predicting aspiration risk.
methodsRecorded [i] phonations during routine nasal endoscopy from 163 unique patients were retrospectively analyzed for acoustic features, including pitch, jitter, shimmer, harmonic to noise ratio, and others. Supervised ML was performed on the vowel phonations of those at high-risk for aspiration versus those at low-risk for aspiration. Ground truth of aspiration risk classification for model development was established using a video fluoroscopic swallow study. The performance of the ML model was tested on an independent, external cohort of patient voice samples. The performance of trained speech language pathologists to categorize high versus low-risk aspirators by listening to phonations was compared against the ML model.
resultsMean ML risk score for those with the ground truth of high versus low aspiration risk was 0.530 (SD 0.310) vs 0.243 (SD 0.249), which was a significant difference (0.287, 95% CI 0.192-0.381; P<.001). In the development cohort, the model showed an area under the curve for the receiver operator characteristic of 0.76 (0.67-0.84) with specificity of 0.76 and F
conclusionsOtolaryngology (ear, nose, and throat) patients at high risk for aspiration have quantifiable voice characteristics that significantly differ from those who are at a low risk for aspiration, as detected by an ML model trained to analyze sustained phonation and tested on an independent cohort.
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.