ArticleDigital biomarkers
Validation of an Automated Speech Analysis of Cognitive Tasks within a Semiautomated Phone Assessment.
Article in Digital biomarkers. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Alzheimer's disease digital biomarkers multidimensional landscape and AI model scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- User Experience of a (Semi-) Automated Cognitive Phone-Based Assessment Within a Memory Clinic Population.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025Article
- From "invisible" to "audible": Features extracted during simple speech tasks classify patient-reported fatigue in multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a self-administered computerized cognitive assessment based on automatic speech recognition.PloS one · 2024Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We studied the accuracy of the automatic speech recognition (ASR) software by comparing ASR scores with manual scores from a verbal learning test (VLT) and a semantic verbal fluency (SVF) task in a semiautomated phone assessment in a memory clinic population. Furthermore, we examined the differentiating value of these tests between participants with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We also investigated whether the automatically calculated speech and linguistic features had an additional value compared to the commonly used total scores in a semiautomated phone assessment. Methods: We included 94 participants from the memory clinic of the Maastricht University Medical Center+ (SCD Results: The intraclass correlation for inter-rater reliability between the manual and the ASR total word count was 0.89 (95% CI 0.09-0.97) for the VLT immediate recall, 0.94 (95% CI 0.68-0.98) for the VLT delayed recall, and 0.93 (95% CI 0.56-0.97) for the SVF. The full model including the total word count and speech and linguistic features had an area under the curve of 0.81 and 0.77 for the VLT immediate and delayed recall, respectively, and 0.61 for the SVF. Conclusion: There was a high agreement between the ASR and manual scores, keeping the broad confidence intervals in mind. The phone-based VLT was able to differentiate between SCD and MCI and can have opportunities for clinical trial screening.
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.