MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264121265 · doi:10.1176/appi.pn.2016.1b4

Automated Speech Analysis May Identify People With Alzheimer’s Disease

2016· article· en· W2264121265 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nick Zagorski

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric News · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseasePsychologyNatural language processingComputer scienceSpeech recognitionLinguisticsMedicinePathologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Clinical and Research NewsFull AccessAutomated Speech Analysis May Identify People With Alzheimer's DiseaseNick ZagorskiNick ZagorskiPublished Online:5 Feb 2016https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2016.1b4AbstractA set of 35 subtle impairments in semantics, acoustics, syntax, and descriptive clarity can differentiate people with possible Alzheimer's compared with matched controls with over 80 percent accuracy.Alzheimer's disease affects cognition and memory, and those deficiencies readily manifest themselves in the way that someone speaks and writes. For years now, researchers have been examining how language might be used to identify or predict Alzheimer's or other types of dementia.One effort known as the Nuns Study, which was started in 1990, examined the written biographies of women who had joined a convent and found that the complexity of the writing was a strong indicator of who might develop dementia later in life. More recently, in 2009, a pair of researchers at the University of Toronto analyzed Agatha Christie's novels and found changes in syntax and complexity that supported the belief that she had Alzheimer's.Of course, not everyone has a literary trove that can be used to help make a diagnosis of Alzheimer's, but with recent technological advancements, that may no longer be necessary.A report published October 15 in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease found that language-processing software can differentiate people with Alzheimer's from healthy subjects using only a short segment of language.One hundred and sixty-seven patients diagnosed with "possible" or "probable" Alzheimer's and 97 healthy controls were tasked with describing the same picture, and their narratives—which averaged a little over 100 words and included both audio and transcribed files—were then analyzed by a comprehensive software program that examined 370 distinct elements of speech.On the basis of subtle differences in language, the program was able to accurately differentiate subjects in the two groups, reaching a maximum accuracy of about 82 percent when using a set of 35 speech features.These 35 differences primarily clustered in four distinct categories: semantic impairment (using overly simple words), acoustic impairment (speaking very slowly), syntax impairment (using less complex grammar), and information impairment (not clearly identifying the main aspects of the picture).Frank Rudzicz, Ph.D., says that someday people may be able to use the language recognition program developed by him and his colleagues to decide whether they need a comprehensive clinical evaluation."The importance of acoustics was intriguing and somewhat unanticipated," said study coauthor Frank Rudzicz, Ph.D., an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Toronto (who trained under Graeme Hirst, one of the Agatha Christie researchers). "But it shows how new technologies can build on earlier research and help us develop more accurate and cost-effective diagnostic tools."Rudzicz, who carried out this research along with University of Toronto colleagues Katie Fraser, a Ph.D. student, and Jed Meltzer, Ph.D., told Psychiatric News that he envisions that someday this software could be a publicly available tool that people could use to self-diagnose any potential dementia risk, which would then be a basis for a more comprehensive clinical evaluation."The current tests needed to clinically evaluate someone for dementia are pretty rigorous and can take almost an entire day, so it's not feasible for physicians to conduct these on all their patients on a regular basis," he said.Even as he explores the commercial potential, though, he sees more research potential as well."The relative speed and ease of analyzing the language data can enable us to closely study longitudinal changes in the brain," he said. "Many other studies may take data from a patient only once or they come back one year later. But everyone has good days and bad days, and often a participant's performance on a given test on a given day is not a true indicator of his or her disease state."Using the automated software can be akin to using the snap feature on cameras that take several continuous shots. A patient recites a narrative at periodic intervals over the course of weeks or months, and the software paints a detailed "photo" of the patient's cognitive state."This is a well-done study that included a large number of patients and considered a wide range of speech variables," said Cheryl Corcoran, M.D., an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University. She is part of a research team that recently demonstrated the ability of language recognition software to differentiate at-risk individuals who developed psychosis versus those who did not (November 6, 2015). "Interestingly, there was overlap in key speech parameters with our prognostic study, in that both semantic and syntactic impairment are common in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's. Specifically, there is impairment in the ability to maintain a theme throughout discourse, as well as a reduction in syntactic complexity—that is, using shorter sentences and fewer subordinate clauses." Corcoran said that she was also intrigued by the finding of acoustic impairments as a discriminating factor, and her group hopes to undertake similar acoustic studies shortly using audio files from their high-psychosis-risk cohort. This study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Alzheimer's Association, and Alzheimer Society of Canada. ■An abstract of "Linguistic Features Identify Alzheimer's Disease in Narrative Speech" can be accessed here. ISSUES NewArchived

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.018

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric NewsSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207