Facial and Vocal Markers of Schizophrenia Measured Using Remote Smartphone Assessments: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning-based facial and vocal measurements have demonstrated relationships with schizophrenia diagnosis and severity. Demonstrating utility and validity of remote and automated assessments conducted outside of controlled experimental or clinical settings can facilitate scaling such measurement tools to aid in risk assessment and tracking of treatment response in populations that are difficult to engage. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of machine learning-based facial and vocal measurements acquired through automated assessments conducted remotely through smartphones. METHODS: Measurements of facial and vocal characteristics including facial expressivity, vocal acoustics, and speech prevalence were assessed in 20 patients with schizophrenia over the course of 2 weeks in response to two classes of prompts previously utilized in experimental laboratory assessments: evoked prompts, where subjects are guided to produce specific facial expressions and speech; and spontaneous prompts, where subjects are presented stimuli in the form of emotionally evocative imagery and asked to freely respond. Facial and vocal measurements were assessed in relation to schizophrenia symptom severity using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. RESULTS: Vocal markers including speech prevalence, vocal jitter, fundamental frequency, and vocal intensity demonstrated specificity as markers of negative symptom severity, while measurement of facial expressivity demonstrated itself as a robust marker of overall schizophrenia symptom severity. CONCLUSIONS: Established facial and vocal measurements, collected remotely in schizophrenia patients via smartphones in response to automated task prompts, demonstrated accuracy as markers of schizophrenia symptom severity. Clinical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".