ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Voice disorders classification using machine learning: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-driven refinements for voice disorder classification: improving accuracy and generalisability.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Robust nasality representation learning for cleft palate-related velopharyngeal dysfunction screening in real-world settings.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This review aims to identify the key barriers to clinical application of Machine Learning (ML) in multi-class voice disorder classification. Design: Scoping Review. Methods: A comprehensive scoping review of research published between 2013 and May 2025 in seven clinical and engineering databases was conducted. Articles that applied ML techniques to classify voice disorders were examined, excluding publications limited to binary classification (e.g., healthy vs. pathological). Data were extracted from the included articles to analyze patterns in the specific voice disorder classification classes, database selection, the input data attributes, vocal tasks, diagnostic labelling, and the applied ML classification techniques. Results: In total, 10,401 articles that addressed voice disorder classification were screened from which 80 used ML techniques for multi-class classification. Results revealed considerable variation in selection of databases, voice disorder diagnostic labels, amount and type of input data (e.g., voice tasks and demographics questionnaire), and classification techniques. These inconsistencies prevent robust comparisons and therefore identification of state-of-the-art solutions, which would typically mature to clinical applications. Discussions: Variations in classification tasks make it difficult to compare results across studies. The inconsistency found in terms of class imbalance, sample size, and total number of classes investigated, means there is no baseline for comparing and exploring various classification techniques. Finally, variations in testing methods such as using different test set types and sizes or using cross validation limit comparisons across articles. Conclusions: This review identified considerable variations in the diagnostic labels associated with voice disorder classification, data availability per selected label, and testing methodology. Such variation limits comparability and undermines the generalization of ML models. The lack of consensus across the automated classification pipeline - from selection of which disorders should be classified using ML systems, to constructing test sets and measuring performance - are likely to be critical barriers to clinical application. These barriers must be addressed to realise the potential for using voice as a biomarker of other systemic diseases.
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.