Fairness-Aware Partial-label Domain Adaptation for Voice Classification of Parkinson's and ALS
Authors: Arianna Francesconi, Zhixiang Dai, Arthur Stefano Moscheni, Himesh Morgan Perera Kanattage, Donato Cappetta, Fabio Rebecchi, Paolo Soda, Valerio Guarrasi, Rosa Sicilia, Mary-Anne Hartley
Organizations: School of Computer and Communication Sciences, EPFL (École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne), Lausanne, Switzerland · Unit of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Systems, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy · Eustema S.p.A., Research and Development Centre, Naples, Italy · Department of Diagnostics and Intervention, Radiation Physics, Biomedical Engineering, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden · UniCamillus-Saint Camillus International University of Health Sciences, Rome, Italy
Voice-based digital biomarkers can enable scalable, non-invasive screening and monitoring of Parkinson's disease (PD) and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). However, models trained on one cohort or device often fail on new acquisition settings due to cross-device and cross-cohort domain shift. This challenge is amplified in real-world scenarios with partial-label mismatch, where datasets may contain different disease labels and only partially overlap in class space. In addition, voice-based models may exploit demographic cues, raising concerns about gender-related unfairness, particularly when deployed across heterogeneous cohorts. To tackle these challenges, we propose a hybrid framework for unified three-class (healthy/PD/ALS) cross-domain voice classification from partially overlapping cohorts. The method combines style-based domain generalization with conditional adversarial alignment tailored to partial-label settings, reducing negative transfer. An additional adversarial gender branch promotes gender-invariant representations. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation across four heterogeneous sustained-vowel datasets, spanning distinct acquisition settings and devices, under both domain generalization and unsupervised domain adaptation protocols. The proposed approach is compared against twelve state-of-the-art machine learning and deep learning methods, and further evaluated through three targeted ablations, providing the first cross-cohort benchmark and end-to-end domain-adaptive framework for unified healthy/PD/ALS voice classification under partial-label mismatch and fairness constraints. Across all experimental settings, our method consistently achieves the best external generalization over the considered evaluation metrics, while maintaining reduced gender disparities. Notably, no competing method shows statistically significant gains in external performance.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Class
Male (#,%)
Female (#,%)
Total (#,%)
mPower
HC
751 (86.4%)
118 (13.6%)
869 (66.6%)
PD
311 (71.5%)
124 (28.5%)
435 (33.4%)
VOC-ALS
HC
31 (63.3%)
18 (36.7%)
49 (33.8%)
ALS
62 (64.6%)
34 (35.4%)
96 (66.2%)
UAMS
HC
14 (38.9%)
22 (61.1%)
36 (49.3%)
PD
19 (51.4%)
18 (48.6%)
37 (50.7%)
Table 1: Patient distribution per dataset, class, and gender. Values are reported as number of patients (#) and percentage (%). Gender percentages are computed within each class and total percentages within each dataset.
Figure 1: FairPDA architecture: ResNet-18+MixStyle extracts a 512-D feature vector; a task head predicts HC/PD/ALS; a conditional domain adversary (input f⊗p , GRL) performs partial-label alignment via target-driven source reweighting; a GRL-based gender adversary promotes gender-invariant features.
Seg.
Methods
CE+PN: Cross-Entropy with Patient Normalization
CE: standard Cross-Entropy
Int BalAcc
Int MCC
Ext BalAcc
Ext MCC
EOD
EOG
Int BalAcc
Int MCC
Ext BalAcc
Ext MCC
EOD
EOG
2.0 s
FairPDA
52.27 ± 1.78
0.28 ± 0.03
45.52 ± 6.75
0.18 ± 0.08
0.07 ± 0.09
0.11 ± 0.09
46.99 ± 2.58
0.22 ± 0.06
43.13 ± 2.44
0.14 ± 0.09
0.06 ± 0.04
0.09 ± 0.02
SVM (MFCC)
51.37 ± 3.72
0.21 ± 0.04
38.54 ± 3.06
0.01 ± 0.03
0.06 ± 0.08
0.13 ± 0.15
41.67 ± 1.91
0.22 ± 0.05
33.73 ± 1.62
-0.01 ± 0.04
0.17 ± 0.10
0.18 ± 0.09
SVM (eG)
41.46 ± 1.17
0.23 ± 0.02
33.26 ± 1.16
0.02 ± 0.05
0.05 ± 0.03
0.08 ± 0.02
41.65 ± 1.92
0.23 ± 0.05
33.65 ± 1.74
-0.00 ± 0.03
0.19 ± 0.07
0.20 ± 0.08
XGBoost (MFCC)
44.34 ± 2.42
0.22 ± 0.07
31.68 ± 2.11
-0.02 ± 0.05
0.12 ± 0.10
0.21 ± 0.14
43.90 ± 2.45
0.22 ± 0.03
35.12 ± 1.90
0.04 ± 0.04
0.20 ± 0.15
0.22 ± 0.12
XGBoost (eG)
45.78 ± 1.58
0.24 ± 0.07
28.74 ± 2.13
-0.05 ± 0.03
0.06 ± 0.06
0.19 ± 0.14
46.53 ± 1.64
0.32 ± 0.03
38.54 ± 3.06
0.11 ± 0.07
0.17 ± 0.05
0.18 ± 0.05
Table 2: Comparison of CE+PN vs. CE results for 2.0 s and 4.0 s segments. BalAcc is reported as percentage [0,100] , whilst MCC ranges from −1 to +1 . Bold: best results for each metric; Orange shading: statistically different from FairPDA at p<0.1 ; Blue shading: statistically different from FairPDA at p<0.05 .
Seg.
CE+PN: Cross-Entropy with Patient Normalization
CE: standard Cross-Entropy
Method
Int BalAcc
Int MCC
Ext BalAcc
Ext MCC
EOD
EOG
Int BalAcc
Int MCC
Ext BalAcc
Ext MCC
EOD
EOG
2.0 s
FairPDA
52.27 ± 1.78
0.28 ± 0.03
45.52 ± 6.75
0.18 ± 0.08
0.07 ± 0.09
0.11 ± 0.09
46.99 ± 2.58
0.22 ± 0.06
43.13 ± 2.44
0.14 ± 0.09
0.06 ± 0.04
0.09 ± 0.02
no Warmup
46.04 ± 9.57
0.21 ± 0.07
39.73 ± 4.83
0.10 ± 0.07
0.13 ± 0.08
0.20 ± 0.15
44.73 ± 9.16
0.23 ± 0.04
37.69 ± 4.70
0.08 ± 0.06
0.13 ± 0.09
0.21 ± 0.13
no MixStyle
46.06 ± 4.92
0.26 ± 0.05
39.12 ± 4.72
0.08 ± 0.08
0.21 ± 0.10
0.23 ± 0.08
45.50 ± 3.89
0.23 ± 0.06
38.76 ± 4.10
0.09 ± 0.06
0.16 ± 0.07
0.25 ± 0.09
no Fairness
46.23 ± 5.79
0.39 ± 0.06
34.54 ± 5.21
0.04 ± 0.07
0.13 ± 0.15
0.14 ± 0.15
39.95 ± 4.84
0.38 ± 0.03
37.78 ± 12.26
0.06 ± 0.02
0.23 ± 0.06
0.23 ± 0.06
4.0 s
FairPDA
50.91 ± 7.77
0.26 ± 0.09
42.19 ± 2.06
0.19 ± 0.06
0.04 ± 0.12
0.06 ± 0.04
50.37 ± 4.26
0.29 ± 0.06
45.87 ± 4.88
0.17 ± 0.07
0.04 ± 0.01
0.07 ± 0.06
Table 3: Ablation study comparing CE+PN vs. CE for 2.0 s and 4.0 s segments. BalAcc is reported as percentage [0,100] , whilst MCC ranges from −1 to +1 . Bold: best results for each metric; Orange shading: statistically different from FairPDA at p<0.1 ; Blue shading: statistically different from FairPDA at p<0.05 .
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Chittagong, 4349, Bangladesh · School of Computing, Mathematics and Engineering, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, 2795, Australia · School of Science, Engineering and Technology, East Delta University, Chittagong, 4209, Bangladesh +1