ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Detection of Pathological Voice Samples Using a Text-to-Speech-Inspired Approach With Multiple Model Architectures: Method Development and Comparative Evaluation Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet 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
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: Voice disorders are common, yet access to timely specialist assessment is often limited. Automated analysis of short voice recordings may support early screening, but achieving robust performance on heterogeneous clinical datasets remains challenging. Objective: This study aims to investigate the impact of synthetic speech augmentation on voice disorder recognition and classification using the Saarbrücken Voice Database (SVD) and to develop an adaptive ensemble with learnable weighting and optional sex embedding. Methods: Sentence recordings from the SVD were used for binary voice disorder recognition (VDR, n=1988) and 4-class voice disorder classification (VDC; n=1199). Two text-to-speech (TTS) models, XTTS and Kartoffelbox, generated 1 synthetic sample for each training instance. Synthetic speech quality was assessed in a blinded listening evaluation with 40 samples per TTS model. Baseline models included support vector machine (SVM), ResNet-18, long short-term memory, and transformer-based architectures, including Hidden-Unit BERT (HuBERT), Wav2Vec 2.0, and WavLM. Ensemble learning and learnable fusion (LF), with and without a sex embedding (LFS), were evaluated using bootstrapped performance estimates and standard classification metrics. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was reported for VDR. Results: In the blinded evaluation, Kartoffelbox-generated synthetic samples were less often identified as synthetic than XTTS-generated synthetic samples (10/19, 52.6% vs 17/19, 89.5%). In pooled original and synthetic ratings, Kartoffelbox showed higher pathological-status identification than XTTS for pathological samples (22/29, 75.9% vs 19/29, 65.5%) and nonpathological samples (8/10, 80.0% vs 6/10, 60.0%), as well as higher diagnostic-class assignment (20/39, 51.3% vs 14/39, 35.9%). Among the baseline models, HuBERT showed the most balanced VDR performance (accuracy=0.85, Conclusions: High-quality synthetic speech augmentation can improve automated voice disorder analysis across heterogeneous clinical data, with effectiveness varying by the TTS model. Multimodel fusion of complementary architectures provided robust performance for screening and multiclass classification, with the strongest approach varying by metric and task. These findings support further evaluation of AI-assisted preassessment in clinical and telemedicine settings.
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.