Evaluating the utility of daily speech assessments for monitoring depression symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Depression is a common mental health disorder and a major public health concern, significantly interfering with the lives of those affected. The complex clinical presentation of depression complicates symptom assessments. Day-to-day fluctuations of depression symptoms within an individual bring an additional barrier, since infrequent testing may not reveal symptom fluctuation. Digital measures such as speech can facilitate daily objective symptom evaluation. Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of daily speech assessment in characterizing speech fluctuations in the context of depression symptoms, which can be completed remotely, at a low cost and with relatively low administrative resources. Methods: = 16) completed a daily speech assessment, using the Winterlight Speech App, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for 30 consecutive business days. We calculated 230 acoustic and 290 linguistic features from individual's speech and investigated their relationship to depression symptoms at the intra-individual level through repeated measures analyses. Results: We observed that depression symptoms were linked to linguistic features, such as less frequent use of dominant and positive words. Greater depression symptomatology was also significantly correlated with acoustic features: reduced variability in speech intensity and increased jitter. Conclusions: Our findings support the feasibility of using acoustic and linguistic features as a measure of depression symptoms and propose daily speech assessment as a tool for better characterization of symptom fluctuations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".