Multilingual text normalization for computer‐based detection of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Understanding how Alzheimer’s Disease affects linguistic functions could improve early detection of the disease, since many studies have demonstrated that language alterations can appear at an early stage. In order to measure those functions, we process and analyze transcripts from multiple corpora based on the Cookie‐Theft picture description task. Text normalization plays a big role when it comes to creating a solid dataset from a heterogeneous corpus of patients’ interviews. Current tools for this type of task are limited and tend to be language and context dependant. Method This paper presents a simple and efficient method to process textual data in a pipeline architecture, sequencing sub‐problems of cleaning and normalization tasks. Since some of them are language and context dependant, they were made easily configurable, increasing scalability when dealing with new corpora. Then, multiple measures are extracted while cleaning transcripts, as it also contains valuable information, like the number of repetitions or incomplete words removed. Result Results show that we are able to improve performance on this time consuming task when working with a multilingual dataset compared to previous studies. In fact, we were able to normalize a French and English Cookie‐Theft corpus easily. Given the great diversity of languages and related structures, this method therefore has certain limitations. Moreover, our findings have shown great potential in cleaning and normalizing measures extracted for detecting Alzheimer’s disease. For instance, the number of retracings removed from transcripts revealed a significant correlation (> 0.5) with the severity of cognitive impairment. Conclusion Thus, this paper contributes to Alzheimer’s disease literature by presenting an efficient tool which allows to speed up the cleaning and normalization process of transcripts. Furthermore, extracted measures from this task could improve results when training for a predictive model in AD detection, since it captures some metrics highly correlated with the patient’s mental health status. Finally, this tool could eventually be used for different types of description tasks since it is not dependant of the context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".