Development and Comparison of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Speech Audiometry Prediction

被引:0
|
作者
Shin, Jae sung [1 ]
Ma, Jun [1 ]
Makara, Mao [1 ]
Sung, Nak-Jun [2 ]
Choi, Seong Jun [3 ]
Kim, Sung yeup [4 ]
Hong, Min [5 ]
机构
[1] Soonchunhyang Univ, Dept Software Convergence, Asan 31538, South Korea
[2] Natl Canc Ctr, Res Inst, Goyang 10245, South Korea
[3] Soonchunhyang Univ, Coll Med, Cheonan Hosp, Dept Otorhinolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Cheonan 31151, South Korea
[4] Soonchunhyang Univ, Insitute Artificial Intelligence & Software, Asan 31538, South Korea
[5] Soonchunhyang Univ, Dept Comp Software Engn, Asan 31538, South Korea
来源
APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL | 2025年 / 15卷 / 06期
关键词
speech audiometry; pure-tone audiometry; multilayer perceptron; recurrent neural network; gradient boosting; XGBoost; regression analysis in audiology; deep learning; machine learning; hearing assessment; PURE-TONE AUDIOMETRY;
D O I
10.3390/app15063071
中图分类号
O6 [化学];
学科分类号
0703 ;
摘要
Hearing loss significantly impacts daily communication, making accurate speech audiometry (SA) assessment essential for diagnosis and treatment. However, SA testing is time-consuming and resource-intensive, limiting its accessibility in clinical practice. This study aimed to develop a multi-class classification model that predicts SA results using pure-tone audiometry (PTA) data, enabling a more efficient and automated assessment. To achieve this, we implemented and compared MLP, RNN, gradient boosting, and XGBoost models, evaluating their performance using accuracy, F1 score, log loss, and confusion matrix analysis. Experimental results showed that gradient boosting achieved the highest accuracy, 86.22%, while XGBoost demonstrated a more balanced classification performance. The MLP achieved 85.77% and the RNN achieved 85.41%, exhibiting relatively low accuracy, with the RNN showing limitations due to the low temporal dependency of PTA data. Additionally, all models faced challenges predicting class 2 (borderline hearing levels) due to overlapping data distributions. These findings suggest that machine learning models, particularly gradient boosting and XGBoost, outperform deep learning models in SA prediction. Future research should focus on feature engineering, hyperparameter optimization, and ensemble approaches to enhance performance and validate real-world applicability. The proposed model could contribute to automating SA prediction and improving hearing assessment efficiency and patient care.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] A Comparison of Machine Learning Models in Electron Output Prediction
    Box, J.
    Ahmad, S.
    Chen, Y.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 47 (06) : E676 - E676
  • [12] Predicting ACL Reconstruction Failure with Machine Learning: Development of Machine Learning Prediction Models
    Alaiti, Rafael Krasic
    Vallio, Caio Sain
    da Silva, Andre Giardino Moreira
    Gobbi, Riccardo Gomes
    Pecora, Jose Ricardo
    Helito, Camilo Partezani
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2025, 13 (03)
  • [13] Development and comparison of deep learning toolkit with other machine learning methods
    Mitrofanov, Artem
    Korotcov, Alexandru
    Tkachenko, Valery
    Ekins, Sean
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2017, 254
  • [14] Performance Comparison of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms in Detecting Online Hate Speech
    Shibly, F. H. A.
    Sharma, Uzzal
    Naleer, H. M. M.
    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INNOVATIVE COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS, ICICC 2022, VOL 1, 2023, 473 : 695 - 706
  • [15] An Analytical Comparison of the Behavior of Machine Learning and Deep Learning in Stock Market Prediction
    Abdullah, Hasanen S.
    Ali, Nada Hussain
    Jassim, Ammar Hussein
    Hussain, Syed Hamid
    BAGHDAD SCIENCE JOURNAL, 2025, 22 (01)
  • [16] Monthly streamflow prediction and performance comparison of machine learning and deep learning methods
    Ayana, Omer
    Kanbak, Deniz Furkan
    Keles, Muemine Kaya
    Turhan, Evren
    ACTA GEOPHYSICA, 2023, 71 (06) : 2905 - 2922
  • [17] Monthly streamflow prediction and performance comparison of machine learning and deep learning methods
    Ömer Ayana
    Deniz Furkan Kanbak
    Mümine Kaya Keleş
    Evren Turhan
    Acta Geophysica, 2023, 71 : 2905 - 2922
  • [18] Machine Learning and Deep Learning for Throughput Prediction
    Lee, Dongwon
    Lee, Joohyun
    12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON UBIQUITOUS AND FUTURE NETWORKS (ICUFN 2021), 2021, : 452 - 454
  • [19] Comparison of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Network Intrusion Detection Systems
    Thapa, Niraj
    Liu, Zhipeng
    Kc, Dukka B.
    Gokaraju, Balakrishna
    Roy, Kaushik
    FUTURE INTERNET, 2020, 12 (10) : 1 - 16
  • [20] Review on machine and deep learning models for the detection and prediction of Coronavirus
    Salehi, Ahmad Waleed
    Baglat, Preety
    Gupta, Gaurav
    MATERIALS TODAY-PROCEEDINGS, 2020, 33 : 3896 - 3901