Language Analytics for Assessment of Mental Health Status and Functional Competency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Automated language analysis is becoming an increasingly popular tool in clinical research involving individuals with mental health disorders. Previous work has largely focused on using high-dimensional language features to develop diagnostic and prognostic models, but less work has been done to use linguistic output to assess downstream functional outcomes, which is critically important for clinical care. In this work, we study the relationship between automated language composites and clinical variables that characterize mental health status and functional competency using predictive modeling. STUDY DESIGN: Conversational transcripts were collected from a social skills assessment of individuals with schizophrenia (n = 141), bipolar disorder (n = 140), and healthy controls (n = 22). A set of composite language features based on a theoretical framework of speech production were extracted from each transcript and predictive models were trained. The prediction targets included clinical variables for assessment of mental health status and social and functional competency. All models were validated on a held-out test sample not accessible to the model designer. STUDY RESULTS: Our models predicted the neurocognitive composite with Pearson correlation PCC = 0.674; PANSS-positive with PCC = 0.509; PANSS-negative with PCC = 0.767; social skills composite with PCC = 0.785; functional competency composite with PCC = 0.616. Language features related to volition, affect, semantic coherence, appropriateness of response, and lexical diversity were useful for prediction of clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: Language samples provide useful information for the prediction of a variety of clinical variables that characterize mental health status and functional competency.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".