ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
The tongue may not move, but the voice will: preoperative AI voice cloning for identity preservation in major glossectomy - a prospective feasibility study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Major glossectomy frequently results in profound speech impairment. We investigated whether a patient's voice could be captured preoperatively and reconstructed using artificial intelligence voice cloning for potential future use as a personalized assistive communication voice during postoperative recovery. Methods: In this prospective single-centre feasibility study, adult patients with treatment-naïve carcinoma of the tongue planned for major glossectomy underwent a single approximately 30-60 second preoperative voice recording in a sound-treated room. Voices were cloned offline using the IndicF5 flow-matching text-to-speech model, generating a standardized reading-passage output and a patient-transcript output for each participant. Speaker fidelity was assessed using cosine similarity across three independent speaker-verification encoders, calibrated against each patient's intra-speaker and cohort impostor distributions, alongside mel-cepstral distortion and prosodic feature analysis. Subjective acceptance was assessed using the Personalised Synthetic Voice Acceptance Questionnaire across six domains, completed by patients and family members. Results: Of 34 enrolled patients, 26 formed the final cohort across four languages. Mean cosine similarity was 0.933 (Resemblyzer), 0.969 (WavLM), and 0.806 (ECAPA-TDNN), with clone scores generally falling within patient-specific intra-speaker distributions and above cohort impostor distributions. Mean mel-cepstral distortion was 7.87 dB. Fundamental frequency and other prosodic measures showed broad cohort-level correspondence with variable individual deviations. Identity-and-Ownership and Authenticity-and-Trust domains scored highest among both patients and family or attenders, while naturalness and emotional acceptance were rated more conservatively. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the feasibility of generating personalised synthetic voices from brief preoperative clinic-grade recordings, with objective speaker similarity and preliminary patient- and family-reported acceptance. The findings support further evaluation of these voices as potential assistive communication tools during postoperative recovery; however, postoperative communication performance and clinical benefit were not evaluated in the present study.
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.