Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129754›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2022

Evaluating Web-Based Automatic Transcription for Alzheimer Speech Data: Transcript Comparison and Machine Learning Analysis.

Thomas Soroski, Thiago da Cunha Vasco, Sally Newton-Mason, Saffrin Granby, Caitlin Lewis, Anuj Harisinghani, Matteo Rizzo, Cristina Conati, Gabriel Murray, Giuseppe Carenini and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Language dysfunction as a primary feature of cognitive decline in neurological populations.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Lingo: an automated, web-based deep phenotyping platform for language ability.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Thomas SoroskiVancouver Stroke Program and Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2847-0990
Thiago da Cunha VascoDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6709-0456
Sally Newton-MasonVancouver Stroke Program and Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3390-8253
Saffrin GranbyDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9995-6357
Caitlin LewisVancouver Stroke Program and Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5886-5002
Anuj HarisinghaniDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7206-4888
Matteo RizzoDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9723-211X
Cristina ConatiDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8434-9335
Gabriel MurraySchool of Computing, University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2233-6288
Giuseppe CareniniDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4310-0119
Thalia S FieldVancouver Stroke Program and Division of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1176-0633
Hyeju JangDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7652-1158

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpeech data for medical research can be collected noninvasively and in large volumes. Speech analysis has shown promise in diagnosing neurodegenerative disease. To effectively leverage speech data, transcription is important, as there is valuable information contained in lexical content. Manual transcription, while highly accurate, limits the potential scalability and cost savings associated with language-based screening.

objectiveTo better understand the use of automatic transcription for classification of neurodegenerative disease, namely, Alzheimer disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or subjective memory complaints (SMC) versus healthy controls, we compared automatically generated transcripts against transcripts that went through manual correction.

methodsWe recruited individuals from a memory clinic ("patients") with a diagnosis of mild-to-moderate AD, (n=44, 30%), MCI (n=20, 13%), SMC (n=8, 5%), as well as healthy controls (n=77, 52%) living in the community. Participants were asked to describe a standardized picture, read a paragraph, and recall a pleasant life experience. We compared transcripts generated using Google speech-to-text software to manually verified transcripts by examining transcription confidence scores, transcription error rates, and machine learning classification accuracy. For the classification tasks, logistic regression, Gaussian naive Bayes, and random forests were used.

resultsThe transcription software showed higher confidence scores (P<.001) and lower error rates (P>.05) for speech from healthy controls compared with patients. Classification models using human-verified transcripts significantly (P<.001) outperformed automatically generated transcript models for both spontaneous speech tasks. This comparison showed no difference in the reading task. Manually adding pauses to transcripts had no impact on classification performance. However, manually correcting both spontaneous speech tasks led to significantly higher performances in the machine learning models.

conclusionsWe found that automatically transcribed speech data could be used to distinguish patients with a diagnosis of AD, MCI, or SMC from controls. We recommend a human verification step to improve the performance of automatic transcripts, especially for spontaneous tasks. Moreover, human verification can focus on correcting errors and adding punctuation to transcripts. However, manual addition of pauses is not needed, which can simplify the human verification step to more efficiently process large volumes of speech data.

Indexed as

Alzheimer diseasemachine learningmemorymild cognitive impairmentnatural language processingneurodegenerative diseasespeechspeech recognition softwaretranscription software

Identifiers

PMID36129754
PMCPMC9536526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.