Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment From Non-Semantic, Acoustic Voice Features: The Framingham Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the aging global population and the rising burden of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRDs), there is a growing focus on identifying mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to enable timely interventions that could potentially slow down the onset of clinical dementia. The production of speech by an individual is a cognitively complex task that engages various cognitive domains. The ease of audio data collection highlights the potential cost-effectiveness and noninvasive nature of using human speech as a tool for cognitive assessment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to construct a machine learning pipeline that incorporates speaker diarization, feature extraction, feature selection, and classification to identify a set of acoustic features derived from voice recordings that exhibit strong MCI detection capability. METHODS: The study included 100 MCI cases and 100 cognitively normal controls matched for age, sex, and education from the Framingham Heart Study. Participants' spoken responses on neuropsychological tests were recorded, and the recorded audio was processed to identify segments of each participant's voice from recordings that included voices of both testers and participants. A comprehensive set of 6385 acoustic features was then extracted from these voice segments using OpenSMILE and Praat software. Subsequently, a random forest model was constructed to classify cognitive status using the features that exhibited significant differences between the MCI and cognitively normal groups. The MCI detection performance of various audio lengths was further examined. RESULTS: An optimal subset of 29 features was identified that resulted in an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, with a 95% CI of 0.81-0.94. The most important acoustic feature for MCI classification was the number of filled pauses (importance score=0.09, P=3.10E-08). There was no substantial difference in the performance of the model trained on the acoustic features derived from different lengths of voice recordings. CONCLUSIONS: This study showcases the potential of monitoring changes to nonsemantic and acoustic features of speech as a way of early ADRD detection and motivates future opportunities for using human speech as a measure of brain health.
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".