Remote data collection speech analysis and prediction of the identification of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers in people at risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia: the Speech on the Phone Assessment (SPeAk) prospective observational study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Identifying cost-effective, non-invasive biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a clinical and research priority. Speech data are easy to collect, and studies suggest it can identify those with AD. We do not know if speech features can predict AD biomarkers in a preclinical population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Speech on the Phone Assessment (SPeAk) study is a prospective observational study. SPeAk recruits participants aged 50 years and over who have previously completed studies with AD biomarker collection. Participants complete a baseline telephone assessment, including spontaneous speech and cognitive tests. A 3-month visit will repeat the cognitive tests with a conversational artificial intelligence bot. Participants complete acceptability questionnaires after each visit. Participants are randomised to receive their cognitive test results either after each visit or only after they have completed the study. We will combine SPeAK data with AD biomarker data collected in a previous study and analyse for correlations between extracted speech features and AD biomarkers. The outcome of this analysis will inform the development of an algorithm for prediction of AD risk based on speech features. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 20-EMREC-007). All participants will provide informed consent before completing any study-related procedures, participants must have capacity to consent to participate in this study. Participants may find the tests, or receiving their scores, causes anxiety or stress. Previous exposure to similar tests may make this more familiar and reduce this anxiety. The study information will include signposting in case of distress. Study results will be disseminated to study participants, presented at conferences and published in a peer reviewed journal. No study participants will be identifiable in the study results.
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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.013 |
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".