Abstract
Introduction Detecting voice disorders from voice recordings could allow for frequent, remote, and low-cost screening before costly clinical visits and a more invasive laryngoscopy examination. Our goals were to detect unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP) from voice recordings using machine learning, to identify which acoustic variables were important for prediction to increase trust, and to determine model performance relative to clinician performance.
Methods Patients with confirmed UVFP through endoscopic examination (N=77) and controls with normal voices matched for age and sex (N=77) were included. Voice samples were elicited by reading the Rainbow Passage and sustaining phonation of the vowel “a”. Four machine learning models of differing complexity were used. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) was used to identify important features.
Results The highest median bootstrapped ROC AUC score was 0.87 and beat clinician’s performance (range: 0.74 – 0.81) based on the recordings. Recording durations were different between UVFP recordings and controls due to how that data was originally processed when storing, which we can show can classify both groups. And counterintuitively, many UVFP recordings had higher intensity than controls, when UVFP patients tend to have weaker voices, revealing a dataset-specific bias which we mitigate in an additional analysis.
Conclusion We demonstrate that recording biases in audio duration and intensity created dataset-specific differences between patients and controls, which models used to improve classification. Furthermore, clinician’s ratings provide further evidence that patients were over-projecting their voices and being recorded at a higher amplitude signal than controls. Interestingly, after matching audio duration and removing variables associated with intensity in order to mitigate the biases, the models were able to achieve a similar high performance. We provide a set of recommendations to avoid bias when building and evaluating machine learning models for screening in laryngology.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We would like to thank Cody Sullivan and Carolyn Hsu for their help in rating the audio samples and thank Daryush Mehta, Robert Hillman, and John Guttag for their feedback on an earlier version of this study. DML was supported by a National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders T32 training grant [5T32DC000038-28], a RallyPoint Fellowship, and an Amelia Peabody Professional Development Award. The work was supported by a gift to the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT. SSG was partially supported by National Institutes of Health grants for the development of pydra-ml [R01 EB020740], for reproducible practices [P41 EB019936], and the Bridge2AI voice data generation project [1OT2OD032720-01]. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Partners Healthcare (IRB 2019002711).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Equal contribution
Figure 1 and 3 updated.
Data Availability
All data and code are available through Github (https://github.com/danielmlow/vfp) and Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5009208) including a tutorial to test our models on your own data (https://github.com/danielmlow/vfp/blob/main/vfp_detector.ipynb).
