Quantum Approaches for Dysphonia Assessment in Small Speech Datasets

Bipasha Kashyap; Ha Tran; Pubudu N. Pathirana

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Quantum Approaches for Dysphonia Assessment in Small Speech Datasets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Quantum feature extraction beats plain CNNs for dysphonia detection when voice data is scarce.

desk verdict A legitimate first application of QNNs to dysphonia, but early stopping on the test set leaks evaluation information and voids the headline accuracy comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08968 v1 pith:QZT5YZ25 submitted 2025-02-13 cs.ET cs.SD

Ha Tran , Bipasha Kashyap , Pubudu N. Pathirana This is my paper

classification cs.ETcs.SD

keywords quantummachinelearningquanvolutionalneuralnetworkdysphoniadetectionMelspectrogramsmallspeechdatasethybridquantum-classicalmodelvoicedisorderclassificationearlystopping

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that a hybrid quantum-classical neural network can detect dysphonia from voice recordings more accurately and more stably than a classical CNN when labeled speech data is scarce. It builds paired architectures that differ only in the first feature-extraction layer, comparing two Quanvolutional Neural Networks (QNNs) against two otherwise identical CNNs on Mel spectrograms of sustained /a/ vowels. Ten experiments scale the training set from 60 to 240 samples while testing on the same 61 held-out files. In the paper's reported results, the QNN versions consistently show higher mean accuracy and smaller standard deviation, with the deeper QNN2 outperforming CNN2 at every training-set size. If the comparison is sound, it would give clinicians and researchers a concrete reason to use quantum feature extraction in small medical audio datasets.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the quanvolutional layer, a drop-in replacement for a classical convolutional layer in which a small image patch is encoded into a quantum circuit rather than multiplied by a learned kernel. Here the layer uses $2\times2$ patches, angle encoding via $R_y$ rotations with angles proportional to pixel intensities, a random entangling circuit, and Pauli-Z decoding into four feature channels. Because the paired CNN and QNN architectures differ only in this first layer, any systematic difference in accuracy and variance is attributed to the quantum feature extraction this layer performs.

What would settle it

Re-run the ten training-set-size experiments with early stopping based on a separate validation set rather than the test set, then evaluate both matched architectures on the same 61 held-out samples; if the QNN no longer beats the CNN in mean accuracy or standard deviation, the central claim is refuted. A second check is to repeat each experiment under many random seeds and random quantum circuits and ask whether the advantage survives the resulting variance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing the first convolutional layer with a $2\times2$ quanvolutional layer improves dysphonia classification on small data. Each patch of the Mel spectrogram is angle-encoded onto four qubits, processed by a random quantum circuit whose two-qubit gates create entanglement, and read out as Pauli-Z expectation values to form four output channels; the rest of the network is classical. Across ten training-set sizes, QNN1 reaches 76%–85% mean accuracy for 60–160 training samples while CNN1 reaches 73%–75%, and QNN2 maintains higher accuracy with tighter standard deviations than CNN2 at every size. The authors interpret the result as evidence that quantum correlations extract features that are useful precisely when classical CNNs are data-hungry.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison stands only if the 'testing loss' used for early stopping is computed on a validation split that is separate from the 61 held-out samples used to report final accuracy, so model selection does not contaminate the reported QNN-versus-CNN comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Dysphonia can be classified from a single sustained /a/ vowel with roughly 76%–87% mean test accuracy using only 60–240 training spectrograms, which is a realistic data budget for a rare voice disorder.
Adding classical convolutional and pooling layers after the quanvolutional layer raises accuracy, so quantum feature extraction composes with ordinary deep-learning building blocks.
The reported advantage is largest at the smallest training sizes, suggesting the quantum layer is most useful exactly when data is hardest to obtain.
Because QNNs reach high test accuracy in fewer epochs, they also reduce the number of training iterations needed in simulation.
The same paired architecture could serve as a template for testing quantum feature extraction on other small medical audio datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If early stopping was applied using the same 61 samples later used for final accuracy, the reported margins could partly come from test-set-aware model selection; repeating the runs with a separate validation split is the natural check.
The random quantum circuit is generated once per model, so the results may depend on that draw; rerunning across many random circuits and reporting the spread would show whether the advantage is stable.
The quanvolutional layer is simulated classically, so the experiment does not yet measure the effect of hardware noise on a real quantum processor; a NISQ implementation could erase or enlarge the gap.
The same first-layer swap could be tested on other scarce medical audio tasks, such as detecting Parkinsonian voice or COVID-19 cough, to see whether the quantum advantage generalizes beyond dysphonia.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it is a legitimate first application of quanvolutional neural networks to dysphonia detection, with a clean apples-to-apples architecture comparison—only the first convolution layer is swapped. Second, the central empirical claim is not supported because the early stopping criterion uses the test loss, so the 61 held-out samples are doing double duty as model selection and final evaluation.

What the paper does well: the experimental design of varying training set size from 60 to 240 and reporting mean and standard deviation over repeated runs is sensible for a small-data question. The QNN method comes from Henderson et al. 2020, and the authors cite it properly, along with Yang et al. 2021 for speech. They are honest about their setup and provide version numbers for PennyLane and TensorFlow. The transfer to a voice disorder dataset is a reasonable extension, and the paper is clearly written.

The soft spots are load-bearing. Section III-B says early stopping halts training if the testing loss does not decrease for 15 epochs, and Figures 5-6 plot testing loss and testing accuracy against epochs. With no validation set, the model is being selected on the same 61 test samples used to report accuracy. That makes the reported accuracies selection statistics, not clean out-of-sample evaluations. The QNN advantage, especially the stability claim from smaller standard deviations, could be an artifact of picking checkpoints on the test set. Second, the random quantum circuit is described only as random gates with random angles; no seed, distribution, or concrete circuit is given, so the experiment is not reproducible. Third, there are no significance tests across the runs. The first issue alone invalidates the headline result.

All that said, this is a fixable paper, not a hopeless one. A revised version with a proper validation split for early stopping, a specified circuit, and significance tests could be a useful data point for the small-data quantum ML literature. As is, I would not cite the accuracy comparison, but I would send it to review with a request for major revision rather than desk-reject: the question is worth asking and the flaw is methodological rather than fatal to the idea.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes hybrid quantum-classical Quanvolutional Neural Networks (QNNs) for dysphonia classification from Mel spectrograms and compares them with classical CNNs on a small speech dataset (PVQD, 304 samples split into 243 training and 61 test images). Two QNN and two CNN architectures are evaluated across ten training-set sizes (60 to 240 samples), with the reported claim that QNNs consistently achieve higher accuracy and lower variance than CNNs. The quanvolutional layer uses 2x2 patches, angle encoding, a random quantum circuit, and Pauli-Z expectation decoding, simulated in PennyLane. The paper reports mean test accuracy and standard deviation over ten experiments, plus epoch-wise accuracy and loss curves for two training sizes.

Significance. If the reported advantage were methodologically sound, the paper would provide a useful early data point on whether quanvolutional feature extractors help in small medical audio datasets, which is a plausible and interesting hypothesis. The study has some strengths: it addresses a clinically relevant problem, uses a public dataset, varies the training-set size systematically, and keeps the compared architectures nearly identical except for the first feature-extraction layer. However, the manuscript does not ship code, does not specify the random quantum circuit, and, most importantly, appears to use the held-out test loss for early stopping. Because the central comparison is therefore not a clean out-of-sample evaluation, the quantitative conclusions about QNN superiority are not supported as presented. The contribution is better viewed as a preliminary benchmark idea that would need a properly designed validation protocol, a fully specified quantum circuit, and statistical testing to be credible.

major comments (4)

[III-A / III-B] Section III-A describes only a 243/61 train/test split with no validation set, and Section III-B states that early stopping halts training if the 'testing loss' does not decrease after 15 consecutive epochs, with Figures 5-6 plotting 'Testing accuracy' and 'Testing loss' versus epoch. If this loss is computed on the same 61 held-out samples used to report final accuracy, then model selection is performed on the test set and the reported accuracies are selection statistics rather than unbiased generalization estimates. The QNN-versus-CNN comparison in Figure 4 is therefore not a clean test of the abstract's claim. If the authors instead mean a validation loss, the manuscript does not describe where that validation set comes from; either way, the current protocol does not support the stated conclusion.
[II-B.1.b] The random quantum circuit U is described only as choosing randomly among 1-qubit gates (Rx, Ry, Rz, T, H) and 2-qubit gates (CNOT, SWAP, CZ) with random angles. The number of circuit layers, the distribution over gates, the parameter ranges, the entanglement structure, and the random seed are not specified. Consequently, the QNN implementation is not reproducible. Moreover, if the quanvolutional layer is fixed before the classical layers are trained, the comparison may be between a random feature extractor and a trained CNN, which would not support the paper's attribution of the advantage to quantum feature extraction. Please specify the circuit construction and, ideally, report results averaged over multiple random circuit instances.
[IV] The paper reports mean accuracy and standard deviations over '10 folds' but provides no statistical significance tests, confidence intervals, or paired comparisons. With only 61 test samples, a difference of a few percentage points between QNNs and CNNs (Figure 4) can easily arise from sampling noise; the claim that QNNs are 'consistently' superior is not quantified. Please report per-experiment test accuracies, exact p-values or bootstrap confidence intervals, and the number of independent test samples contributing to each point.
[III-A / III-B] The experimental protocol is underspecified: the relationship between the '10 experiments' with increasing training sizes (60-240), the '10 training steps', and the '10 folds' mentioned in Section III-B is not explained. For example, are the same 61 test samples reused across all ten experiments, and are the '10 folds' cross-validation folds within the training portion or repeated random draws? This ambiguity makes it impossible to determine the effective sample size and the independence of the ten accuracy values whose mean and standard deviation are plotted in Figure 4.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 5 caption] The word 'Comparision' should be 'Comparison'.
[II-A] The phrase 'height-by-weight-by-channel' should read 'height-by-width-by-channel' for the input dimension 40-by-100-by-1.
[III-A] It should be stated explicitly whether the 61 test samples are disjoint from the randomly selected training subsets in every experiment; as written, a reader cannot tell whether the same patient or recording can appear in both the training subset and the test set across different runs.
[III-B] The mention of 'k-fold Cross-Validation' is not accompanied by a description of how folds are formed; this is connected to major comment 4 and should be clarified.
[General] No code, data split details, or random seeds are provided, which prevents exact replication of the experiments even if the quantum circuit were fully specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is an empirical benchmark with external model comparison; the early-stopping test-set concern is a validity issue, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper reports a direct empirical comparison between quanvolutional neural networks and classical CNNs on a fixed dysphonia dataset. It does not derive a prediction from fitted parameters, nor does it rely on a self-referential definition or a load-bearing self-citation. The QNN and CNN accuracy values are measured on held-out samples, and the reported comparison is not equivalent to any input by construction. The methodological concern that early stopping is applied to the 'testing loss' while no separate validation set is described (Sections III-A and III-B) could compromise the out-of-sample validity of the benchmark, but that is a data-contamination or experimental-design issue, not a circularity defect under the stated criteria. All cited prior work is external, and the quanvolutional architecture is adopted from an independent source. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several domain assumptions about the dataset and the simulation, plus a number of hand-chosen architecture hyperparameters. No new entities are introduced. The most consequential implicit assumption is that the early-stopping signal ('testing loss') is not drawn from the same 61 samples used for final evaluation.

free parameters (4)

Early stopping patience = 15 epochs
Chosen by hand; the patience threshold governs when training stops and affects final accuracy for all models.
Dropout probability = 0.5
Chosen by hand for the fully connected layers; standard but not tuned.
Number of filters in CONV1 = 4
Chosen by hand for scenario 1; not justified.
Number of filters in CONV2 = 16
Chosen by hand for scenario 2; not justified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption PVQD labels correctly identify dysphonia and healthy voices in the /a/ vowel recordings.
The study relies on the database's clinical labels without independent verification (Section III-A).
domain assumption The Mel spectrogram representation preserves the acoustic information relevant to dysphonia.
The method assumes 40x100 Mel spectrograms are sufficient for classification (Section II-A).
domain assumption The 243 training and 61 testing images are independent samples with no patient overlap.
The paper does not describe patient-level splitting; if multiple recordings from the same participant appear in both sets, results are optimistic (Section III-A).
domain assumption Pennylane's simulated quantum circuit behaves equivalently to a real quantum device.
The experiments run on a classical simulator; noise and decoherence of real hardware are ignored (Section III-B).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Approaches for Dysphonia Assessment in Small Speech Datasets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZT5YZ25

@misc{pith2026250208968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Approaches for Dysphonia Assessment in Small Speech Datasets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZT5YZ25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08968}
}

read the original abstract

Dysphonia, a prevalent medical condition, leads to voice loss, hoarseness, or speech interruptions. To assess it, researchers have been investigating various machine learning techniques alongside traditional medical assessments. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have gained popularity for their success in audio classification and speech recognition. However, the limited availability of speech data, poses a challenge for CNNs. This study evaluates the performance of CNNs against a novel hybrid quantum-classical approach, Quanvolutional Neural Networks (QNNs), which are well-suited for small datasets. The audio data was preprocessed into Mel spectrograms, comprising 243 training samples and 61 testing samples in total, and used in ten experiments. Four models were developed (two QNNs and two CNNs) with the second models incorporating additional layers to boost performance. The results revealed that QNN models consistently outperformed CNN models in accuracy and stability across most experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08968 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The speech processing. B. Quanvolutional Neural Network QNN is the hybrid quantum-classical neural network. The quanvolutional layer replaces the convolutional layer in the classical CNN model to improve performance by extracting features using quantum circuit properties. These features are subsequently aggregated and passed to the following layers in the classical neural network, enabling further processing and cla… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The quanvolutional layer. a) Encoding: There are several encoding methods including basis, amplitude, and angle encoding. In this research, angle encoding is selected using parametrized rotations (Ry(θ)) four initialized qubits in the ground state. A 2-by-2 square of the Mel spectrogram image is used as the input of the encoding part. Four rotational parameters θi are calculated from the corresponding four intens… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The proposed framework: (1a) Quanvolutional Neural Network 1 (QNN1) and (1b) Convolutional Neural Network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of testing accuracy of (a) 1st and (b) 2nd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparision of testing accuracy (above) and testing loss (below) of QNN1 and CNN1 at 60 and 240 training samples. Number of training samples: 60 Number of training samples: 240 Testing accuracy Testing loss Epoch Epoch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparision of testing accuracy (above) and testing loss (below) of QNN2 and CNN2 at 60 and 240 training samples. comparing its performance with a classical convolutional neural network (CNN) across an increasing number of training samples, we were able to evaluate th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

V oice disorders: etiology and diagnosis,

R. H. G. Martins, H. A. do Amaral, E. L. M. Tavares, M. G. Martins, T. M. Gonc ¸alves, and N. H. Dias, “V oice disorders: etiology and diagnosis,” Journal of voice , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 761–e1, 2016

work page 2016
[2]

Hirano, Clinical Examination of Voice , ser

M. Hirano, Clinical Examination of Voice , ser. Disorders of human communication. Springer-Verlag, 1981. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vclqQgAACAAJ

work page 1981
[3]

Direct health care costs of laryngeal diseases and disorders,

S. M. Cohen, J. Kim, N. Roy, C. Asche, and M. Courey, “Direct health care costs of laryngeal diseases and disorders,” The Laryngoscope, vol. 122, no. 7, pp. 1582–1588, 2012

work page 2012
[4]

V oice disorder identification by using machine learning techniques,

L. Verde, G. De Pietro, and G. Sannino, “V oice disorder identification by using machine learning techniques,” IEEE access , vol. 6, pp. 16 246–16 255, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

V oice disorder detection using machine learning algorithms: An application in speech and language pathology,

M. U. Rehman, A. Shafique, S. S. Jamal, Y . Gheraibia, A. B. Usman et al. , “V oice disorder detection using machine learning algorithms: An application in speech and language pathology,” Engineering Ap- plications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 133, p. 108047, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Machine learning approach to dysphonia detection,

Z. Dankovi ˇcov´a, D. Sov ´ak, P. Drot ´ar, and L. V okorokos, “Machine learning approach to dysphonia detection,” Applied Sciences , vol. 8, no. 10, p. 1927, 2018

work page 1927
[7]

Discrimination between pathological and normal voices using gmm-svm approach,

X. Wang, J. Zhang, and Y . Yan, “Discrimination between pathological and normal voices using gmm-svm approach,” Journal of Voice , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 38–43, 2011

work page 2011
[8]

V oice pathology de- tection using convolutional neural networks with electroglottographic (egg) and speech signals,

R. Islam, E. Abdel-Raheem, and M. Tarique, “V oice pathology de- tection using convolutional neural networks with electroglottographic (egg) and speech signals,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, vol. 2, p. 100074, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 27 references

[9]

Convolutional neural networks for pathological voice detection,

H. Wu, J. Soraghan, A. Lowit, and G. Di Caterina, “Convolutional neural networks for pathological voice detection,” in 2018 40th annual international conference of the ieee engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–4

2018
[10]

An efficient smote-based deep learning model for voice pathology detection,

J.-N. Lee and J.-Y . Lee, “An efficient smote-based deep learning model for voice pathology detection,” Applied Sciences , vol. 13, no. 6, p. 3571, 2023

2023
[11]

V oice disorder clas- sification using convolutional neural network based on deep transfer learning,

X. Peng, H. Xu, J. Liu, J. Wang, and C. He, “V oice disorder clas- sification using convolutional neural network based on deep transfer learning,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 7264, 2023

2023
[12]

Deep learning in automatic detection of dysphonia: Comparing acoustic features and developing a generalizable framework,

Z. Chen, P. Zhu, W. Qiu, J. Guo, and Y . Li, “Deep learning in automatic detection of dysphonia: Comparing acoustic features and developing a generalizable framework,” International Journal of Lan- guage & Communication Disorders, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 279–294, 2023

2023
[13]

Schuld and F

M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Machine learning with quantum com- puters. Springer, 2021, vol. 676

2021
[14]

A novel autonomous perceptron model for pattern classification applications,

A. Sagheer, M. Zidan, and M. M. Abdelsamea, “A novel autonomous perceptron model for pattern classification applications,” Entropy, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 763, 2019

2019
[15]

Covid-19 detection on ibm quantum computer with classical-quantum transferlearning,

E. Acar and I. Yilmaz, “Covid-19 detection on ibm quantum computer with classical-quantum transferlearning,” Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 46–61, 2021

2021
[16]

Classical-to-quantum transfer learning for spoken command recognition based on quantum neural networks,

J. Qi and J. Tejedor, “Classical-to-quantum transfer learning for spoken command recognition based on quantum neural networks,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 8627–8631

2022
[17]

Qspeech: low-qubit quantum speech application toolkit,

Z. Hong, J. Wang, X. Qu, C. Zhao, W. Tao, and J. Xiao, “Qspeech: low-qubit quantum speech application toolkit,” in 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 01–08

2022
[18]

Consensus-based distributed quantum kernel learning for speech recognition,

K.-C. Chen, W. Ma, and X. Xu, “Consensus-based distributed quantum kernel learning for speech recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05770, 2024

2024 arXiv
[19]

Decentralizing feature extraction with quantum convolutional neural network for automatic speech recognition,

C.-H. H. Yang, J. Qi, S. Y .-C. Chen, P.-Y . Chen, S. M. Siniscalchi, X. Ma, and C.-H. Lee, “Decentralizing feature extraction with quantum convolutional neural network for automatic speech recognition,” in ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech an...

2021
[20]

Quanvolutional neural networks: powering image recognition with quantum circuits,

M. Henderson, S. Shakya, S. Pradhan, and T. Cook, “Quanvolutional neural networks: powering image recognition with quantum circuits,” Quantum Machine Intelligence , vol. 2, no. 1, p. 2, 2020

2020
[21]

Specaugment: A simple data augmentation method for automatic speech recognition,

D. S. Park, W. Chan, Y . Zhang, C.-C. Chiu, B. Zoph, E. D. Cubuk, and Q. V . Le, “Specaugment: A simple data augmentation method for automatic speech recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08779 , 2019

1904 arXiv
[22]

Large-scale weakly supervised audio classification using gated convolutional neural net- work,

Y . Xu, Q. Kong, W. Wang, and M. D. Plumbley, “Large-scale weakly supervised audio classification using gated convolutional neural net- work,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 121–125

2018
[23]

An exploration of log-mel spectrogram and mfcc features for alzheimer’s dementia recognition from spontaneous speech,

A. Meghanani, C. S. Anoop, and A. Ramakrishnan, “An exploration of log-mel spectrogram and mfcc features for alzheimer’s dementia recognition from spontaneous speech,” in 2021 IEEE spoken language technology workshop (SLT) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 670–677

2021
[24]

Exploring the features of quanvolutional neural networks for improved image classification,

T. H. Vu, L. H. Le, and T. B. Pham, “Exploring the features of quanvolutional neural networks for improved image classification,” Quantum Machine Intelligence , vol. 6, no. 1, p. 29, 2024

2024
[25]

Perceptual voice qualities database (pvqd),

P. R. Walden, “Perceptual voice qualities database (pvqd),” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.17632/9dz247gnyb.3

2020 doi
[26]

Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,

V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi et al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[27]

Early stopping-but when?

L. Prechelt, “Early stopping-but when?” in Neural Networks: Tricks of the trade . Springer, 2002, pp. 55–69

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

V oice disorders: etiology and diagnosis,

R. H. G. Martins, H. A. do Amaral, E. L. M. Tavares, M. G. Martins, T. M. Gonc ¸alves, and N. H. Dias, “V oice disorders: etiology and diagnosis,” Journal of voice , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 761–e1, 2016

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Hirano, Clinical Examination of Voice , ser

M. Hirano, Clinical Examination of Voice , ser. Disorders of human communication. Springer-Verlag, 1981. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vclqQgAACAAJ

work page 1981

[3] [3]

Direct health care costs of laryngeal diseases and disorders,

S. M. Cohen, J. Kim, N. Roy, C. Asche, and M. Courey, “Direct health care costs of laryngeal diseases and disorders,” The Laryngoscope, vol. 122, no. 7, pp. 1582–1588, 2012

work page 2012

[4] [4]

V oice disorder identification by using machine learning techniques,

L. Verde, G. De Pietro, and G. Sannino, “V oice disorder identification by using machine learning techniques,” IEEE access , vol. 6, pp. 16 246–16 255, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

V oice disorder detection using machine learning algorithms: An application in speech and language pathology,

M. U. Rehman, A. Shafique, S. S. Jamal, Y . Gheraibia, A. B. Usman et al. , “V oice disorder detection using machine learning algorithms: An application in speech and language pathology,” Engineering Ap- plications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 133, p. 108047, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Machine learning approach to dysphonia detection,

Z. Dankovi ˇcov´a, D. Sov ´ak, P. Drot ´ar, and L. V okorokos, “Machine learning approach to dysphonia detection,” Applied Sciences , vol. 8, no. 10, p. 1927, 2018

work page 1927

[7] [7]

Discrimination between pathological and normal voices using gmm-svm approach,

X. Wang, J. Zhang, and Y . Yan, “Discrimination between pathological and normal voices using gmm-svm approach,” Journal of Voice , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 38–43, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [8]

V oice pathology de- tection using convolutional neural networks with electroglottographic (egg) and speech signals,

R. Islam, E. Abdel-Raheem, and M. Tarique, “V oice pathology de- tection using convolutional neural networks with electroglottographic (egg) and speech signals,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, vol. 2, p. 100074, 2022

work page 2022