Applications of Speech Analysis in Psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The need for objective measurement in psychiatry has stimulated interest in alternative indicators of the presence and severity of illness. Speech may offer a source of information that bridges the subjective and objective in the assessment of mental disorders. We systematically reviewed the literature for articles exploring speech analysis for psychiatric applications. The utility of speech analysis depends on how accurately speech features represent clinical symptoms within and across disorders. We identified four domains of the application of speech analysis in the literature: diagnostic classification, assessment of illness severity, prediction of onset of illness, and prognosis and treatment outcomes. We discuss the findings in each of these domains, with a focus on how types of speech features characterize different aspects of psychopathology. Models that bring together multiple speech features can distinguish speakers with psychiatric disorders from healthy controls with high accuracy. Differentiating between types of mental disorders and symptom dimensions are more complex problems that expose the transdiagnostic nature of speech features. Convergent progress in speech research and computer sciences opens avenues for implementing speech analysis to enhance objectivity of assessment in clinical practice. Application of speech analysis will need to address issues of ethics and equity, including the potential to perpetuate discriminatory bias through models that learn from clinical assessment data. Methods that mitigate bias are available and should play a key role in the implementation of speech analysis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".