Charles J Nudelman, Virginia Tardini, Pasquale Bottalico
{"title":"人工智能检测语音障碍:人工智能支持的准确性结果系统评价。","authors":"Charles J Nudelman, Virginia Tardini, Pasquale Bottalico","doi":"10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.09.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of the present systematic review is to identify which artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have been used to successfully detect voice disorders. The review examines studies involving patients with non-neurological voice disorders and controls, where AI was applied to detect voice disorders. The primary outcome of interest is the accuracy of these AI models. Additionally, this review demonstrates how the procedures of conducting a systematic review can be supported by AI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were eligible for inclusion if they implemented an AI approach to detect non-neurological voice disorders from healthy voice samples. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Scopus databases. Risk of bias was assessed via the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. The occurrences of the most common AI techniques utilized in the literature are presented, and a summary of their abilities to accurately detect a voice disorder is reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 79 publications met the inclusion criteria. These studies included patient recordings from a variety of voice databases. The most common AI techniques implemented were Support Vector Machines (SVMs) (n = 28) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) (n = 22). The mean accuracy of the models in detecting voice disorders was 92% across all studies. Nine studies reported 100% accuracy, and 32 studies reported between 95% and 99%.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Strengths of the evidence include high accuracies across diverse models and datasets. Limitations include a limited variety of datasets and a trend of hyperoptimization without sufficient external validation. Clinicians and researchers should recognize that while current AI models show promise, future studies should prioritize robust external validation and more representative datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":49954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Voice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence to Detect Voice Disorders: An AI-Supported Systematic Review of Accuracy Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Charles J Nudelman, Virginia Tardini, Pasquale Bottalico\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.09.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of the present systematic review is to identify which artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have been used to successfully detect voice disorders. The review examines studies involving patients with non-neurological voice disorders and controls, where AI was applied to detect voice disorders. The primary outcome of interest is the accuracy of these AI models. Additionally, this review demonstrates how the procedures of conducting a systematic review can be supported by AI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were eligible for inclusion if they implemented an AI approach to detect non-neurological voice disorders from healthy voice samples. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Scopus databases. Risk of bias was assessed via the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. The occurrences of the most common AI techniques utilized in the literature are presented, and a summary of their abilities to accurately detect a voice disorder is reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 79 publications met the inclusion criteria. These studies included patient recordings from a variety of voice databases. The most common AI techniques implemented were Support Vector Machines (SVMs) (n = 28) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) (n = 22). The mean accuracy of the models in detecting voice disorders was 92% across all studies. Nine studies reported 100% accuracy, and 32 studies reported between 95% and 99%.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Strengths of the evidence include high accuracies across diverse models and datasets. Limitations include a limited variety of datasets and a trend of hyperoptimization without sufficient external validation. Clinicians and researchers should recognize that while current AI models show promise, future studies should prioritize robust external validation and more representative datasets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Voice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Voice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.09.021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Voice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.09.021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本系统综述的目的是确定哪些人工智能(AI)方法已被用于成功检测语音障碍。该综述审查了涉及非神经性语音障碍患者和对照组的研究,其中人工智能应用于检测语音障碍。我们感兴趣的主要结果是这些人工智能模型的准确性。此外,本综述还展示了人工智能如何支持进行系统综述的程序。方法:如果研究采用人工智能方法从健康语音样本中检测非神经性语音障碍,则符合纳入条件。使用PubMed/MEDLINE、Science Direct、Web of Science、EBSCO和Scopus数据库进行全面检索。通过诊断准确性研究质量评估工具评估偏倚风险。介绍了文献中使用的最常见人工智能技术的出现情况,并总结了它们准确检测语音障碍的能力。结果:79篇文献符合纳入标准。这些研究包括来自各种语音数据库的患者录音。最常见的人工智能技术是支持向量机(svm) (n = 28)和卷积神经网络(cnn) (n = 22)。在所有研究中,这些模型检测声音障碍的平均准确率为92%。9项研究报告100%准确,32项研究报告在95%到99%之间。讨论:证据的优势包括不同模型和数据集的高准确性。限制包括有限的数据集和没有足够的外部验证的超优化趋势。临床医生和研究人员应该认识到,虽然目前的人工智能模型显示出希望,但未来的研究应优先考虑强大的外部验证和更具代表性的数据集。
Artificial Intelligence to Detect Voice Disorders: An AI-Supported Systematic Review of Accuracy Outcomes.
Background: The objective of the present systematic review is to identify which artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have been used to successfully detect voice disorders. The review examines studies involving patients with non-neurological voice disorders and controls, where AI was applied to detect voice disorders. The primary outcome of interest is the accuracy of these AI models. Additionally, this review demonstrates how the procedures of conducting a systematic review can be supported by AI.
Methods: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they implemented an AI approach to detect non-neurological voice disorders from healthy voice samples. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Scopus databases. Risk of bias was assessed via the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. The occurrences of the most common AI techniques utilized in the literature are presented, and a summary of their abilities to accurately detect a voice disorder is reported.
Results: In total, 79 publications met the inclusion criteria. These studies included patient recordings from a variety of voice databases. The most common AI techniques implemented were Support Vector Machines (SVMs) (n = 28) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) (n = 22). The mean accuracy of the models in detecting voice disorders was 92% across all studies. Nine studies reported 100% accuracy, and 32 studies reported between 95% and 99%.
Discussion: Strengths of the evidence include high accuracies across diverse models and datasets. Limitations include a limited variety of datasets and a trend of hyperoptimization without sufficient external validation. Clinicians and researchers should recognize that while current AI models show promise, future studies should prioritize robust external validation and more representative datasets.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Voice is widely regarded as the world''s premiere journal for voice medicine and research. This peer-reviewed publication is listed in Index Medicus and is indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information. The journal contains articles written by experts throughout the world on all topics in voice sciences, voice medicine and surgery, and speech-language pathologists'' management of voice-related problems. The journal includes clinical articles, clinical research, and laboratory research. Members of the Foundation receive the journal as a benefit of membership.