ArticleJMIR aging2022
Evaluating Web-Based Automatic Transcription for Alzheimer Speech Data: Transcript Comparison and Machine Learning Analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning Approaches for Dementia Detection Through Speech and Gait Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Pooled it
- Advancing Alzheimer Disease Prediction With Large Language Model-Based Linguistic Feature Analysis: Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Language dysfunction as a primary feature of cognitive decline in neurological populations.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Linguistic Markers in Spontaneous Speech: Insights into Subjective Cognitive Decline (Review).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Systematic Review of Natural Language Processing Techniques for Early Detection of Cognitive Impairment.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Linguistic changes in spontaneous speech for detecting Parkinson's disease using large language models.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Early Identification of Cognitive Impairment in Community Environments Through Modeling Subtle Inconsistencies in Questionnaire Responses: Machine Learning Model Development and Validation.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Lingo: an automated, web-based deep phenotyping platform for language ability.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Lexical Speech Features of Spontaneous Speech in Older Persons With and Without Cognitive Impairment: Reliability Analysis.JMIR aging · 2023Article
- NSSI questionnaires revisited: A data mining approach to shorten the NSSI questionnaires.PloS one · 2023Article
- Natural language processing in Alzheimer's disease research: Systematic review of methods, data, and efficacy.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Review
- Automated remote speech-based testing of individuals with cognitive decline: Bayesian agreement of transcription accuracy.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.