Depressive and mania mood state detection through voice as a biomarker using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Depressive and manic states contribute significantly to the global social burden, but objective detection tools are still lacking. This study investigates the feasibility of utilizing voice as a biomarker to detect these mood states. Methods:From real-world emotional journal voice recordings, 22 features were retrieved in this study, 21 of which showed significant differences among mood states. Additionally, we applied leave-one-subject-out strategy to train and validate four classification models: Chinese-speech-pretrain-GRU, Gate Recurrent Unit (GRU), Bi-directional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM), and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA). Results: Our results indicated that the Chinese-speech-pretrain-GRU model performed the best, achieving sensitivities of 77.5% and 54.8% and specificities of 86.1% and 90.3% for detecting depressive and manic states, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 80.2%. Discussion: These findings show that machine learning can reliably differentiate between depressive and manic mood states via voice analysis, allowing for a more objective and precise approach to mood disorder assessment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".