MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409491885 · doi:10.2196/65555

Acoustic and Natural Language Markers for Bipolar Disorder: A Pilot, mHealth Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4409491885 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cristina Crocamo, R. Cioni, Aurelia Canestro, Christian Nasti, Dario Palpella, Susanna Piacenti, Alessandra Bartoccetti, M. Re, Valentina Simonetti, Chiara Barattieri di San Pietro, Maria Bulgheroni, Francesco Bartoli, Giuseppe Carrà

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthYoung Mania Rating ScaleBipolar disorderMental healthMoodRating scaleCross-sectional studyDigital healthMedicinePsychologyManiaClinical psychologyPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyHealth carePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.412 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicBipolar Disorder and Treatment→French-language works237,207→