Language, Speech, and Facial Expression Features for Artificial Intelligence–Based Detection of Cancer Survivors’ Depression: Scoping Meta-Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors often experience disorders from the depressive spectrum that remain largely unrecognized and overlooked. Even though screening for depression is recognized as essential, several barriers prevent its successful implementation. It is possible that better screening options can be developed. New possibilities have been opening up with advances in artificial intelligence and increasing knowledge on the connection of observable cues and psychological states. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping meta-review was to identify observable features of depression that can be intercepted using artificial intelligence in order to provide a stepping stone toward better recognition of depression among cancer survivors. METHODS: We followed a methodological framework for scoping reviews. We searched SCOPUS and Web of Science for relevant papers on the topic, and data were extracted from the papers that met inclusion criteria. We used thematic analysis within 3 predefined categories of depression cues (ie, language, speech, and facial expression cues) to analyze the papers. RESULTS: The search yielded 1023 papers, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of their findings resulted in several well-supported cues of depression in language, speech, and facial expression domains, which provides a comprehensive list of observable features that are potentially suited to be intercepted by artificial intelligence for early detection of depression. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a synthesis of behavioral features of depression while translating this knowledge into the context of artificial intelligence-supported screening for depression in cancer survivors.
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 | 0.012 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".