Lexical Speech Features of Spontaneous Speech in Older Persons With and Without Cognitive Impairment: Reliability Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Speech analysis data are promising digital biomarkers for the early detection of Alzheimer disease. However, despite its importance, very few studies in this area have examined whether older adults produce spontaneous speech with characteristics that are sufficiently consistent to be used as proxy markers of cognitive status. Objective: This preliminary study seeks to investigate consistency across lexical characteristics of speech in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Methods: A total of 39 older adults from a larger, ongoing study (age: mean 81.1, SD 5.9 years) were included. Participants completed neuropsychological testing and both picture description tasks and expository tasks to elicit speech. Participants with T-scores of ≤40 on ≥2 cognitive tests were categorized as having mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Speech features were computed automatically by using Python and the Natural Language Toolkit. Results: Reliability indices based on mean correlations for picture description tasks and expository tasks were similar in persons with and without MCI (with r ranging from 0.49 to 0.65 within tasks). Intraindividual variability was generally preserved across lexical speech features. Speech rate and filler rate were the most consistent indices for the cognitively intact group, and speech rate was the most consistent for the MCI group. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that automatically calculated lexical properties of speech are consistent in older adults with varying levels of cognitive impairment. These findings encourage further investigation of the utility of speech analysis and other digital biomarkers for monitoring cognitive status over time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".