Improving Depression Prediction Accuracy Using Fisher Score-Based Feature Selection and Dynamic Ensemble Selection Approach Based on Acoustic Features of Speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression affects over 322 million people, and it is the most common source of disability worldwide. Literature in speech processing revealed that speech could be used for detecting depression. Depressed individuals exhibit varied acoustic characteristics compared to non-depressed. A four-staged machine learning classification system is developed to investigate the acoustic parameters to detect depression. Stage one uses speech recordings from a publicly available and clinically validated dataset DAIC-WOZ. The baseline acoustic feature vector, eGeMAPS, is extracted from the dataset in stage two. Adaptive synthetic (ADASYN) is performed along with data preprocessing to overcome the class imbalance. In stage three, we conducted feature selection (FS) using three techniques; Boruta FS, recursive feature elimination using support vector machine (SVM-RFE), and the fisher score-based FS. Experimentation with various machine learning base classifiers like gaussian naïve bayes (GNB), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), logistic regression (LR), and random forest classifier (RF) is performed in stage four. The hyperparameters of the classifiers are tuned using the GridSearchCV technique throughout the 10-fold stratified cross-validation (CV). Then we employed multiple dynamic ensemble selection of classifier algorithms (DES) with k=3 and k=5 utilizing the pool of aforementioned four base classifiers to improve the accuracy. We present a comparative study using eGeMAPS features against the base classifiers and the experimented DES classifiers. Our results on the DAIC-WOZ benchmark dataset suggested that K-Nearest Oracles Union (KNORA-U) DES with k=3 has superior accuracy using a subset of 15 features selected by fisher score-based FS than the individual base classifiers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".