Speech timing and monosyllabic diadochokinesis measures in the assessment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in Canadian French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to determine if speech and pause measures obtained using a passage reading task and timing measures from a monosyllabic diadochokinesis (DDK) task differ across speakers of Canadian French diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) presenting with and without bulbar symptoms, and healthy controls. The secondary objective was to determine if these measures can reflect the severity of bulbar symptoms. A total of 29 Canadian French speakers with ALS (classified as bulbar symptomatic [n = 14] or pre-symptomatic [n = 15]) and 17 age-matched healthy controls completed a passage reading task and a monosyllabic DDK task (/pa/ and /ta/), for up to three follow-up visits. Measures of speaking rate, total duration, speech duration, and pause events were extracted from the passage reading recordings using a semi-automated speech and pause analysis procedure. Manual analysis of DDK recordings provided measures of DDK rate and variability. Group comparisons revealed significant differences (p = < .05) between the symptomatic group and the pre-symptomatic and control groups for all passage measures and DDK rates. Only the DDK rate in /ta/ differentiated the pre-symptomatic and control groups. Repeated measures correlations revealed moderate correlations (rrm = > 0.40; p = < 0.05) between passage measures of total duration, speaking rate, speech duration, and number of pauses, and ALSFRS-R total and bulbar scores, as well as between DDK rate and ALSFRS-R total score. Speech and pause measures in passage and timing measures in monosyllabic DDK tasks might be suitable for monitoring bulbar functional symptoms in French speakers with ALS, but more work is required to identify which measures are sensitive to the earliest stages of the disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".