MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307764818 · doi:10.2196/39998

Screening for Generalized Anxiety Disorder From Acoustic and Linguistic Features of Impromptu Speech: Prediction Model Evaluation Study

2022· article· en· W4307764818 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bazen Gashaw Teferra, Sophie Borwein, Danielle D. DeSouza, Jonathan Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpromptuAnxietyGeneralized anxiety disorderPsychologyMental healthAssociation (psychology)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Frequent interaction with mental health professionals is required to screen, diagnose, and track mental health disorders. However, high costs and insufficient access can make frequent interactions difficult. The ability to assess a mental health disorder passively and at frequent intervals could be a useful complement to the conventional treatment. It may be possible to passively assess clinical symptoms with high frequency by characterizing speech alterations collected using personal smartphones or other wearable devices. The association between speech features and mental health disorders can be leveraged as an objective screening tool. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a model that predicts the presence of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) from acoustic and linguistic features of impromptu speech on a larger and more generalizable scale than prior studies did. METHODS: A total of 2000 participants were recruited, and they participated in a single web-based session. They completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scale assessment and provided an impromptu speech sample in response to a modified version of the Trier Social Stress Test. We used the linguistic and acoustic features that were found to be associated with anxiety disorders in previous studies along with demographic information to predict whether participants fell above or below the screening threshold for GAD based on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scale threshold of 10. Separate models for each sex were also evaluated. We reported the mean area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) from a repeated 5-fold cross-validation to evaluate the performance of the models. RESULTS: A logistic regression model using only acoustic and linguistic speech features achieved a significantly greater prediction accuracy than a random model did (mean AUROC 0.57, SD 0.03; P<.001). When separately assessing samples from female participants, we observed a mean AUROC of 0.55 (SD 0.05; P=.01). The model constructed from the samples from male participants achieved a mean AUROC of 0.57 (SD 0.07; P=.002). The mean AUROC increased to 0.62 (SD 0.03; P<.001) on the all-sample data set when demographic information (age, sex, and income) was included, indicating the importance of demographics when screening for anxiety disorders. The performance also increased for the female sample to a mean of 0.62 (SD 0.04; P<.001) when using demographic information (age and income). An increase in performance was not observed when demographic information was added to the model constructed from the male samples. CONCLUSIONS: A logistic regression model using acoustic and linguistic speech features, which have been suggested to be associated with anxiety disorders in prior studies, can achieve above-random accuracy for predicting GAD. Importantly, the addition of basic demographic variables further improves model performance, suggesting a role for speech and demographic information to be used as automated, objective screeners of GAD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207