“You Say Severe, I Say Mild”: Toward an Empirical Classification of Dysarthria Severity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main purpose of this study was to create an empirical classification system for speech severity in patients with dysarthria secondary to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by exploring the reliability and validity of speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') ratings of dysarthric speech. METHOD: Ten SLPs listened to speech samples from 52 speakers with ALS and 20 healthy control speakers. SLPs were asked to rate the speech severity of the speakers using five response options: normal, mild, moderate, severe, and profound. Four severity-surrogate measures were also calculated: SLPs transcribed the speech samples for the calculation of speech intelligibility and rated the effort it took to understand the speakers on a visual analog scale. In addition, speaking rate and intelligible speaking rate were calculated for each speaker. Intrarater and interrater reliability were calculated for each measure. We explored the validity of clinician-based severity ratings by comparing them to the severity-surrogate measures. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were conducted to create optimal cutoff points for defining dysarthria severity categories. RESULTS: Intrarater and interrater reliability for the clinician-based severity ratings were excellent and were comparable to reliability for the severity-surrogate measures explored. Clinician severity ratings were strongly associated with all severity-surrogate measures, suggesting strong construct validity. We also provided a range of values for each severity-surrogate measure within each severity category based on the cutoff points obtained from the ROC analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician severity ratings of dysarthric speech are reliable and valid. We discuss the underlying challenges that arise when selecting a stratification measure and offer recommendations for a classification scheme when stratifying patients and research participants into speech severity categories.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it