PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal1 citations

The Rise in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Models to Screen for Cleft-Related Velopharyngeal Dysfunction: A Systematic Review

View Full Paper
JIJulia IsberUniversity of Tennessee Health Science CenterWLWeixin LiuVanderbilt UniversityBQBowen QuVanderbilt University

Key Points

  • This review aims to evaluate the use of AI and machine learning in detecting velopharyngeal dysfunction in cleft palate patients.
  • Conducted a systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines.
  • Identified relevant studies through EMBASE, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and PubMed.
  • Included studies involving ML models, training on speech features for VPD.
  • Performed internal and external validation of models based on reported performance metrics.
  • Analyzed 455 articles, with 34 meeting inclusion criteria.
  • Support vector machines were the most utilized model, followed by convolutional neural networks and deep neural networks.
  • Mean accuracy of ML models was reported at 82.9%, with precision at 86.7% and F1-score at 0.88.
  • Only 8.8% of studies included external validation.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo systematically review literature on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models for detecting velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) in patients with cleft palate.DesignSystematic review conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251034524).SettingStudies published were identified through EMBASE, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and PubMed.ParticipantsA total of 3967 participants contributed 92,323 training samples. Internal validation included 2331 controls and 2449 VPD cases, generating 81,143 validation samples. Ages ranged from 1 to 93 years.InterventionsML models were trained on speech features such as mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) and constant Q cepstral coefficients (CQCCs) to classify or validate VPD-related speech outcomes.Main Outcome Measure(s)Reported performance metrics included accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, sensitivity, specificity, and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). External validation was assessed when reported.ResultsOf 455 screened articles, 34 met the inclusion criteria. Support vector machines were the most commonly used models (16/34, 47.1%), followed by convolutional neural networks (6/34, 17.6%) and deep neural networks (2/34, 5.9%). Across studies reporting performance metrics, midpoint estimates yielded a mean accuracy of 82.9%, precision of 86.7%, F1-score of 0.88, sensitivity of 80.5%, specificity of 82.2%, and PCC of 0.58. Only 3 studies (3/34, 8.8%) performed external validation.ConclusionsAI/ML models demonstrate promise for VPD detection with encouraging performance. Inconsistent reporting, reliance on engineered features, and limited external validation restrict generalizability. No clinically deployable model has yet been achieved.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Isber et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fa8e8904f884e66b530e25https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656261445320
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Pitch-Adaptive Front-end Feature for Hypernasality Detection2018 · 12 citations
  2. 2Artificial intelligence for strengthening healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review2022 · 330 citations
  3. 3Acoustic parameters for automatic detection of nasal manner2004 · 61 citations
  4. 4Robust and language-independent acoustic features in Parkinson's disease2023 · 15 citations
  5. 5A noninvasive technique for detecting hypernasal speech using a nonlinear operator1996 · 75 citations