ArticleDysphagia2026
Deep Learning-Based Acoustic Screening for Penetration-Aspiration Events Using Short Voice Recordings.
Article in Dysphagia, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the feasibility of a smartphone-based deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) tool for detecting post-swallow airway compromise through brief acoustic analysis of voice recordings obtained before and after swallowing. This multicenter prospective study employed a simple 1.5-second sustained phonation ("a~") recorded on a smartphone in patients referred for videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS). Cases were classified using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS), with PAS 1 defined as normal and PAS 2-8 as abnormal (penetration-aspiration events). An autoencoder-based anomaly detection model was trained on normal data (PAS 1) and validated using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Among 208 participants, the AI model achieved a sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 87.5% in the validation set, with an accuracy of 90.4% and an AUC of 0.98. In the independent test set, sensitivity was 91.9%, specificity 50.0%, accuracy 85.2%, and AUC 0.76. A brief 1.5-second voice recording analyzed with a deep learning AI model showed promising internal performance for screening post-swallow airway compromise. This approach may serve as a practical and accessible adjunct to identify individuals requiring further instrumental assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42228093What 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.