Predicting clinical scores in Huntington’s disease: a lightweight speech test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Using brief samples of speech recordings, we aimed at predicting, through machine learning, the clinical performance in Huntington's Disease (HD), an inherited Neurodegenerative disease (NDD). METHODS: We collected and analyzed 126 samples of audio recordings of both forward and backward counting from 103 Huntington's disease gene carriers [87 manifest and 16 premanifest; mean age 50.6 (SD 11.2), range (27-88) years] from three multicenter prospective studies in France and Belgium (MIG-HD (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00190450); BIO-HD (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00190450) and Repair-HD (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00190450). We pre-registered all of our methods before running any analyses, in order to avoid inflated results. We automatically extracted 60 speech features from blindly annotated samples. We used machine learning models to combine multiple speech features in order to make predictions at individual levels of the clinical markers. We trained machine learning models on 86% of the samples, the remaining 14% constituted the independent test set. We combined speech features with demographics variables (age, sex, CAG repeats, and burden score) to predict cognitive, motor, and functional scores of the Unified Huntington's disease rating scale. We provided correlation between speech variables and striatal volumes. RESULTS: Speech features combined with demographics allowed the prediction of the individual cognitive, motor, and functional scores with a relative error from 12.7 to 20.0% which is better than predictions using demographics and genetic information. Both mean and standard deviation of pause durations during backward recitation and clinical scores correlated with striatal atrophy (Spearman 0.6 and 0.5-0.6, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Brief and examiner-free speech recording and analysis may become in the future an efficient method for remote evaluation of the individual condition in HD and likely in other NDD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".