ArticleScientific reports2023
Reliability and validity of a widely-available AI tool for assessment of stress based on speech.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An End-to-End Overview of Clinical Speech AI.IEEE transactions on audio, speech, and language processing (2025) · 2026Article
- Unraveling overoptimism and publication bias in ML-driven science.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Operationalizing Clinical Speech Analytics: Moving From Features to Measures for Real-World Clinical Impact.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Responsible development of clinical speech AI: Bridging the gap between clinical research and technology.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cigna's online stress management toolkit includes an AI-based tool that purports to evaluate a person's psychological stress level based on analysis of their speech, the Cigna StressWaves Test (CSWT). In this study, we evaluate the claim that the CSWT is a "clinical grade" tool via an independent validation. The results suggest that the CSWT is not repeatable and has poor convergent validity; the public availability of the CSWT despite insufficient validation data highlights concerns regarding premature deployment of digital health tools for stress and anxiety management.
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.