Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37901366›Full record

ArticleDigital biomarkers

Validation of an Automated Speech Analysis of Cognitive Tasks within a Semiautomated Phone Assessment.

Daphne Ter Huurne, Nina Possemis, Leonie Banning, Angélique Gruters, Alexandra König, Nicklas Linz, Johannes Tröger, Kai Langel, Frans Verhey, Marjolein de Vugt and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Language dysfunction as a primary feature of cognitive decline in neurological populations.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Daphne Ter HuurneAlzheimer Center Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nina PossemisAlzheimer Center Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Leonie BanningMaastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Angélique GrutersCatharina Hospital, Medical Psychology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Alexandra KönigNational Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation (INRIA), Sophie Antipolis, France.
Nicklas Linzki elements, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Johannes Trögerki elements, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Kai LangelJanssen Clinical Innovation, Beerse, Belgium.
Frans VerheyAlzheimer Center Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marjolein de VugtAlzheimer Center Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Inez RamakersAlzheimer Center Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Automated speech analysisFluencyMemoryMild cognitive impairmentPhone assessment

Identifiers

PMID37901366
PMCPMC10601928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.