Acoustic and Natural Language Markers for Bipolar Disorder: A Pilot, mHealth Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Monitoring symptoms of bipolar disorder (BD) is a challenge faced by mental health services. Speech patterns are crucial in assessing the current experiences, emotions, and thought patterns of people with BD. Natural language processing (NLP) and acoustic signal processing may support ongoing BD assessment within a mobile health (mHealth) framework. Objective: Using both acoustic and NLP-based features from the speech of people with BD, we built an app-based tool and tested its feasibility and performance to remotely assess the individual clinical status. Methods: We carried out a pilot, observational study, sampling adults diagnosed with BD from the caseload of the Nord Milano Mental Health Trust (Italy) to explore the relationship between selected speech features and symptom severity and to test their potential to remotely assess mental health status. Symptom severity assessment was based on clinician ratings, using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) for manic and depressive symptoms, respectively. Leveraging a digital health tool embedded in a mobile app, which records and processes speech, participants self-administered verbal performance tasks. Both NLP-based and acoustic features were extracted, testing associations with mood states and exploiting machine learning approaches based on random forest models. Results: We included 32 subjects (mean [SD] age 49.6 [14.3] years; 50% [16/32] females) with a MADRS median (IQR) score of 13 (21) and a YMRS median (IQR) score of 5 (16). Participants freely managed the digital environment of the app, without perceiving it as intrusive and reporting an acceptable system usability level (average score 73.5, SD 19.7). Small-to-moderate correlations between speech features and symptom severity were uncovered, with sex-based differences in predictive capability. Higher latency time (ρ=0.152), increased silences (ρ=0.416), and vocal perturbations correlated with depressive symptomatology. Pressure of speech based on the mean intraword time (ρ=-0.343) and lower voice instability based on jitter-related parameters (ρ ranging from -0.19 to -0.27) were detected for manic symptoms. However, a higher contribution of NLP-based and conversational features, rather than acoustic features, was uncovered, especially for predictive models for depressive symptom severity (NLP-based: R2=0.25, mean squared error [MSE]=110.07, mean absolute error [MAE]=8.17; acoustics: R2=0.11, MSE=133.75, MAE=8.86; combined: R2=0.16; MSE=118.53, MAE=8.68). Conclusions: Remotely collected speech patterns, including both linguistic and acoustic features, are associated with symptom severity levels and may help differentiate clinical conditions in individuals with BD during their mood state assessments. In the future, multimodal, smartphone-integrated digital ecological momentary assessments could serve as a powerful tool for clinical purposes, remotely complementing standard, in-person mental health evaluations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".