SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

An Explainable AI-Driven Classification Framework for Parkinson’s Disease Detection via Acoustic Speech Features: A Comparative Machine Learning Study

· 2026-07-24

DOI: 10.64898/2026.07.22.26358742

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Parkinson’s Disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder which significantly affects motor function, daily coordination and verbal communication. Speech-based biomarkers provide a non-invasive and scalable approach to early detection, as dysphonia is one of the earliest and most consistent clinical markers of PD. The dataset used in this study is publicly available and consists of 756 voice recordings from 252 subjects (188 with PD and 64 neurologically healthy controls) with a wide range of acoustic parameters such as Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs), energy-based parameters, and higher-order statistical derivatives. After systematic preprocessing and z-score normalisation, five machine learning classifiers were tested: K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Naïve Bayes (NB) under a subject-independent, GroupKFold cross-validation protocol. The KNN classifier performed best overall with an accuracy of 92.10%, F1 score of 94.50%, and a precision rate of 98.09%, reducing the number of false positive diagnoses. To overcome the lack of interpretability of black-box predictive models, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used to explain the contribution of each feature to the prediction of an individual. The most diagnostically salient acoustic biomarkers were identified as features from the SHAP analysis: std_delta_delta_log_energy, the first Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficient, and Tunable Q-Factor Wavelet Transform (TQWT). This work introduces a machine learning framework that is both reproducible and clinically interpretable, combining high predictive accuracy with transparent, physiologically grounded decision logic.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.