Evidence Hub

Early Detection of Glottic Cancer Through Machine Learning and Acoustic Voice Analysis: A Systematic Review

Verma H, Mishra R, Nagamani B, Patro SK, Ramavat AS, Bakshi J, Khandnor P, Rani S et al.

Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026

Abstract

Purpose: Early detection of glottic cancer is essential for better outcomes, but current diagnostic methods remain largely invasive, highlighting the need for reliable non-invasive alternatives. Acoustic voice signals offer a non-invasive screening input, but their clinical value depends on whether signal-processing features and learned models can distinguish malignancy from acoustically similar benign lesions rather than merely separate pathological from healthy voices. Despite growing research on acoustic analysis combined with machine learning (ML) techniques, no systematic synthesis of this evidence currently exists. Therefore, the present review aimed to identify acoustic features that differentiate early glottic malignancies from both benign vocal fold lesions and normal vocal function using various ML techniques. Method: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across Scopus, EBSCO, Ovid (Embase), and PubMed databases through November 2025. Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria, and PROBAST was used for quality appraisal of included studies. Data extraction focused on acoustic feature categories, ML techniques, classification performance metrics, and validation strategies. Results: Nine acoustic feature categories emerged, with cepstral coefficients (particularly MFCCs) most prevalent across 55.6% of studies. Binary pathological-versus-normal classification achieved consistently high accuracy (96-98.3%) across both…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free