Clinical psychopathology-based early relapse prediction model using speech and language in psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction of psychotic relapse using speech-derived markers promises targeted early intervention. However, the sheer number of speech markers and the ‘black box’ nature of predictive models challenges clinical translation. We propose a psychopathology-based systematic approach to identify likely relapse. We draw on the notion that the predictors of relapse should mark (1) the presence of schizophrenia in its untreated early stages and (2) track disorganization in psychosis. By leveraging Natural Language Processing, we derive 3 lexical, syntactic and narrative markers -semantic similarity, clause complexity, and analytic thinking index from speech samples of people with acute psychosis ( n = 68) followed up for subsequent relapses over a year (12 out of 68). Speech-based model predicted relapse status with strong evidence (Bayes Factor BF 10 = 79.5) against the clinical intuition model. Using a Bayesian approach, this preliminary study demonstrates the utility of psychopathology-guided variable selection for speech-based relapse prediction complementing clinical intuition in practice. • Speech markers may have greater predictive utility for relapses than clinical intuition. • Analytic thinking and clause complexity relate to relapse risk. • Positive thought disorder severity relates to early relapse. • Brief speech samples provide prognostic information. • Psychopathology-guided feature selection enhances model interpretability.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".