MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410460927 · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105084

AI-powered speech device as a tool for neuropsychological assessment of an older adult population: A preliminary study

2025· article· en· W4410460927 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniela E. Aguilar Ramirez, Lukas Grasse, Scott Stone, Matthew S. Tata, Claudia L. R. Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychologica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeuropsychologyPsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentAudiologyPopulationCognitionMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the older adult population continues to expand, the demands on the healthcare system intensifies, necessitating the development of technologies that effectively accommodate the requirements of older adults. While Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems hold promise as a solution, they have not been designed to accommodate the sensory and cognitive changes typical of aging individuals. The current study investigates the use of an AI-powered communication device for the assessment of neuropsychological tests to an older adult population. Twenty-four (twelve females) older adult participants completed three memory tasks using the AI device: logical memory, poem recall, and the backward and sequencing digit span tests. Significant negative correlations were found between the age of the participants and performance on the Logical memory and digit span tests. The AI device effectively identified age-related memory changes comparable to those observed with human administrators. Implementing this technology in healthcare offers several advantages: alleviating healthcare professionals' workload, improving standard of care by reaching underserved populations, and facilitating continuous screening for early identification of prodromal stages of neurodegenerative diseases.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.401 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PsychologicaSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207