Exploring the Use of Natural Language Processing for Objective Assessment of Disorganized Speech in Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Measurement-based care tools in psychiatry are useful for symptom monitoring and detecting response to treatment, but methods for quick and objective measurement are lacking especially for acute psychosis. The aim of this study was to explore potential language markers, detected by natural language processing (NLP) methods, as a means to objectively measure the severity of psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia in an acute clinical setting. Methods: Twenty-two speech samples were collected from seven participants who were hospitalized for schizophrenia, and their symptoms were evaluated over time with SAPS/SANS and TLC scales. Linguistic features were extracted from the speech data using machine learning techniques. Spearman's correlation was performed to examine the relationship between linguistic features and symptoms. Various machine learning models were evaluated by cross-validation methods for their ability to predict symptom severity using the linguistic markers. Results: Reduced lexical richness and syntactic complexity were characteristic of negative symptoms, while lower content density and more repetitions in speech were predictors of positive symptoms. Machine learning models predicted severity of alogia, illogicality, poverty of speech, social inattentiveness, and TLC scores with up to 82% accuracy. Additionally, speech incoherence was quantifiable through language markers derived from NLP methods. Conclusions: These preliminary findings suggest that NLP may be useful in identifying clinically relevant language markers of schizophrenia, which can enhance objectivity in symptom monitoring during hospitalization. Further work is needed to replicate these findings in a larger data set and explore methods for feasible implementation in practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".