Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42339003›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026

Voice disorders classification using machine learning: a scoping review.

Rijul Gupta, Craig T Jin, Dhanshree R Gunjawate, Duy Duong Nguyen, Brian Stasak, Antonia M Chacon, Catherine Madill

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Rijul GuptaComputing and Audio Research Laboratory, School of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Craig T JinComputing and Audio Research Laboratory, School of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Dhanshree R GunjawateVoice Research Laboratory, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Duy Duong NguyenVoice Research Laboratory, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Brian StasakVoice Research Laboratory, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Antonia M ChaconVoice Research Laboratory, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Catherine MadillVoice Research Laboratory, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

digital healthspeech biomarkersvoice AIvoice disorder discriminationvoice disorder recognition

Identifiers

PMID42339003
PMCPMC13284133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.