Performance of machine learning algorithms for dementia assessment: impacts of language tasks, recording media, and modalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Automatic speech and language assessment methods (SLAMs) can help clinicians assess speech and language impairments associated with dementia in older adults. The basis of any automatic SLAMs is a machine learning (ML) classifier that is trained on participants' speech and language. However, language tasks, recording media, and modalities impact the performance of ML classifiers. Thus, this research has focused on evaluating the effects of the above-mentioned factors on the performance of ML classifiers that can be used for dementia assessment. METHODOLOGY: Our methodology includes the following steps: (1) Collecting speech and language datasets from patients and healthy controls; (2) Using feature engineering methods which include feature extraction methods to extract linguistic and acoustic features and feature selection methods to select most informative features; (3) Training different ML classifiers; and (4) Evaluating the performance of ML classifiers to investigate the impacts of language tasks, recording media, and modalities on dementia assessment. RESULTS: Our results show that (1) the ML classifiers trained with the picture description language task perform better than the classifiers trained with the story recall language task; (2) the data obtained from phone-based recordings improves the performance of ML classifiers compared to data obtained from web-based recordings; and (3) the ML classifiers trained with acoustic features perform better than the classifiers trained with linguistic features. CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates that we can improve the performance of automatic SLAMs as dementia assessment methods if we: (1) Use the picture description task to obtain participants' speech; (2) Collect participants' voices via phone-based recordings; and (3) Train ML classifiers using only acoustic features. Our proposed methodology will help future researchers to investigate the impacts of different factors on the performance of ML classifiers for assessing dementia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".