MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980707117 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.08.089

P4‐542: UTILITY OF SPEECH‐BASED DIGITAL BIOMARKERS FOR EVALUATING DISEASE PROGRESSION IN CLINICAL TRIALS OF ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

2019· article· en· W2980707117 on OpenAlexaff
William Simpson, Liam D. Kaufman, Mike Detke, Casey Lynch, Adam P. Butler, Steve Dominy

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboDiseaseBiomarkerCohortClinical trialMedicineRandomized controlled trialCognitionPsychologyAudiologyOncologyInternal medicinePathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease have been overwhelmingly negative, spurring development of novel biomarkers which might capture changes in cognitive function with greater precision. Computational analysis of speech and language represent one such group of biomarkers(1,2). The objective of this study was to examine the utility of a speech-based digital biomarker for tracking disease progression and treatment response to investigational treatment COR388 in a group of patients with Alzheimer's disease. The study was a small, double-blind placebo-controlled Phase 1b trial (NCT03418688) of COR388 with a cohort of nine (9) individuals with Alzheimer's disease. Participants were randomized to receive COR388 or placebo in a 2:1 fashion, BID for 28 days. A tablet-based speech and language assessment was administered at Days 1, 15 and 28. Participants were asked to complete 2 picture description tasks and verbal responses were analyzed. Five aggregate markers, chosen for their previous association to AD(1,2), were computed: discourse, syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, information units and word finding difficulty (WFD). Previous analysis of single outcomes showed significant improvement in the quality of picture descriptions for COR388 patients relative to placebo (increase in unique object content units, p=0.016 and prepositions, p=0.0011). Positive trends, but no significant differences in MMSE scores were observed(3). For aggregate markers, mean baseline to endpoint comparisons showed statistically significant (p<0.05) improvements in syntactic complexity, lexical complexity and information units in those treated with COR388. No significant within-subject differences were observed for placebo. Baseline to endpoint COR388 information unit differences remained significant post Bonferroni correction (p=0.002). Between-group analysis of information unit change scores (Day 28 vs. Day 1) revealed a 10-point increase for COR388 vs. a 5-point change for placebo but this numerical difference was not significant (p=0.21). In this preliminary trial, patients treated with COR388 showed signs of significant improvement relative to placebo as measured by a speech-based, digital biomarker. No significant changes in MMSE were observed suggesting that digital biomarkers may represent sensitive tools for tracking changes in cognition in small trials. The study also highlights the potential therapeutic benefit of COR388, though additional studies of sufficient power are needed.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207