Characterizing and detecting delirium with clinical and computational measures of speech and language disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a critically underdiagnosed syndrome of altered mental status affecting more than 50% of older adults admitted to hospital. Few studies have incorporated speech and language disturbance in delirium detection. We sought to describe speech and language disturbances in delirium, and provide a proof of concept for detecting delirium using computational speech and language features. METHODS: Participants underwent delirium assessment and completed language tasks. Speech and language disturbances were rated using standardized clinical scales. Recordings and transcripts were processed using an automated pipeline to extract acoustic and textual features. We used binomial, elastic net, machine learning models to predict delirium status. RESULTS: We included 33 older adults admitted to hospital, of whom 10 met criteria for delirium. The group with delirium scored higher on total language disturbances and incoherence, and lower on category fluency. Both groups scored lower on category fluency than the normative population. Cognitive dysfunction as a continuous measure was correlated with higher total language disturbance, incoherence, loss of goal and lower category fluency. Including computational language features in the model predicting delirium status increased accuracy to 78%. LIMITATIONS: This was a proof-of-concept study with limited sample size, without a set-aside cross-validation sample. Subsequent studies are needed before establishing a generalizable model for detecting delirium. CONCLUSION: Language impairments were elevated among patients with delirium and may also be used to identify subthreshold cognitive disturbances. Computational speech and language features are promising as accurate, noninvasive and efficient biomarkers of delirium.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".