MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400584193 · doi:10.3390/jpm14070744

Natural Language Processing and Schizophrenia: A Scoping Review of Uses and Challenges

2024· review· en· W4400584193 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Deneault, Alexandre Dumais, Marie Désilets, Alexandre Hudon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personalized Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Verbal fluency testPopulationFluencyMEDLINECognitionNatural language processingComputer sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyMedicineArtificial intelligencePsychiatryNeuropsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: Approximately 1% of the global population is affected by schizophrenia, a disorder marked by cognitive deficits, delusions, hallucinations, and language issues. It is associated with genetic, neurological, and environmental factors, and linked to dopaminergic hyperactivity and neurotransmitter imbalances. Recent research reveals that patients exhibit significant language impairments, such as reduced verbal output and fluency. Advances in machine learning and natural language processing show potential for early diagnosis and personalized treatments, but additional research is required for the practical application and interpretation of such technology. The objective of this study is to explore the applications of natural language processing in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. (2) Methods: A scoping review was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including Medline, PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo. The search strategy utilized a combination of text words and subject headings, focusing on schizophrenia and natural language processing. Systematically extracted information included authors, population, primary uses of the natural language processing algorithms, main outcomes, and limitations. The quality of the identified studies was assessed. (3) Results: A total of 516 eligible articles were identified, from which 478 studies were excluded based on the first analysis of titles and abstracts. Of the remaining 38 studies, 18 were selected as part of this scoping review. The following six main uses of natural language processing were identified: diagnostic and predictive modeling, followed by specific linguistic phenomena, speech and communication analysis, social media and online content analysis, clinical and cognitive assessment, and linguistic feature analysis. (4) Conclusions: This review highlights the main uses of natural language processing in the field of schizophrenia and the need for more studies to validate the effectiveness of natural language processing in diagnosing and treating schizophrenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personalized MedicineSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207