Digital assessment of speech in Huntington disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Speech changes are an early symptom of Huntington disease (HD) and may occur prior to other motor and cognitive symptoms. Assessment of HD commonly uses clinician-rated outcome measures, which can be limited by observer variability and episodic administration. Speech symptoms are well suited for evaluation by digital measures which can enable sensitive, frequent, passive, and remote administration. Methods: We collected audio recordings using an external microphone of 36 (18 HD, 7 prodromal HD, and 11 control) participants completing passage reading, counting forward, and counting backwards speech tasks. Motor and cognitive assessments were also administered. Features including pausing, pitch, and accuracy were automatically extracted from recordings using the BioDigit Speech software and compared between the three groups. Speech features were also analyzed by the Unified Huntington Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) dysarthria score. Random forest machine learning models were implemented to predict clinical status and clinical scores from speech features. Results: < 0.001 with Cohen'd = -2 between HD and control groups for pause ratio). A few parameters were significantly different between the HD and control groups for the counting forward and backwards speech tasks. A random forest classifier predicted clinical status from speech tasks with a balanced accuracy of 73% and an AUC of 0.92. Random forest regressors predicted clinical outcomes from speech features with mean absolute error ranging from 2.43-9.64 for UHDRS total functional capacity, motor and dysarthria scores, and explained variance ranging from 14 to 65%. Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were predicted with mean absolute error of 2.3 and explained variance of 30%. Conclusion: Speech data have the potential to be a valuable digital measure of HD progression, and can also enable remote, frequent disease assessment in prodromal HD and HD. Clinical status and disease severity were predicted from extracted speech features using random forest machine learning models. Speech measurements could be leveraged as sensitive marker of clinical onset and disease progression in future clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".