MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618625790

Automatic Text and Speech Processing for the Detection of Dementia

2016· dissertation· en· W2618625790 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kathleen Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsDementiaSpeech recognitionNatural language processingComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyMedicinePathologyDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is a gradual cognitive decline that typically occurs as a consequence of neurodegenerative disease, and can result in language deficits (i.e., aphasia). I show that linguistic features automatically extracted from the connected speech samples of individuals with dementia can both differentiate these individuals from healthy controls and contribute to our knowledge of the nature of language impairment in dementia. As a secondary goal, I address the challenges of a fully automated processing pipeline. I focus on a dementia syndrome known as primary progressive aphasia (PPA), in which language abilities are specifically impaired. I begin by automatically extracting linguistic information from transcripts of PPA speech, training machine learning classifiers to differentiate between the different variants of PPA relative to healthy controls, and interpreting the selected features in the context of the PPA literature. While traditional measures of syntactic complexity do not distinguish between the groups, the inclusion of parse-based syntactic features ultimately leads to accuracies of over 90% in three classification tasks. Having shown that the extracted features can differentiate the groups, I examine how these features degrade as a result of the processing steps in a fully automated pipeline, including automatic speech recognition (ASR) and sentence segmentation. The classifiers still achieve positive results, although the degraded feature accuracy may be of concern in biomedical applications. I then explore a question of some debate in the literature: Is there a difference between agrammatism in PPA and agrammatism in post-stroke aphasia? Above-baseline classification results suggest that there are indeed differences between these two impairments. Having validated the methodology on PPA, I conclude by examining whether a similar analysis will detect Alzheimer's disease from speech samples, even though language impairment is not the primary symptom of the disease. By including additional features to measure the information content of the narrative, classification accuracies of up to 81% are achieved. I repeat the classification experiment using ASR transcripts, and find that many of the relevant features are still significantly different between the groups, suggesting that a fully automated analysis may be possible as ASR improves.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207