Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39533239›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

The voice of depression: speech features as biomarkers for major depressive disorder.

Felix Menne, Felix Dörr, Julia Schräder, Johannes Tröger, Ute Habel, Alexandra König, Lisa Wagels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Fundamental Frequency of Voice as a Potential Stress Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Felix Menneki:elements GmbH, Bleichstr. 27, 66111, Saarbrücken, Germany. felix.menne@ki-elements.de.
Felix Dörrki:elements GmbH, Bleichstr. 27, 66111, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Julia SchräderDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Johannes Trögerki:elements GmbH, Bleichstr. 27, 66111, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Ute HabelDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Alexandra Königki:elements GmbH, Bleichstr. 27, 66111, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Lisa WagelsDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 667892/JO 1453/2-1FZJ-NST Bilateral Cooperation Program Global-22-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychiatry faces a challenge due to the lack of objective biomarkers, as current assessments are based on subjective evaluations. Automated speech analysis shows promise in detecting symptom severity in depressed patients. This project aimed to identify discriminating speech features between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and healthy controls (HCs) by examining associations with symptom severity measures.

methodsForty-four MDD patients from the Psychiatry Department, University Hospital Aachen, Germany and fifty-two HCs were recruited. Participants described positive and negative life events, which were recorded for analysis. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression gauged depression severity. Transcribed audio recordings underwent feature extraction, including acoustics, speech rate, and content. Machine learning models including speech features and neuropsychological assessments, were used to differentiate between the MDD patients and HCs.

resultsAcoustic variables such as pitch and loudness differed significantly between the MDD patients and HCs (effect sizes 𝜼2 between 0.183 and 0.3, p < 0.001). Furthermore, variables pertaining to temporality, lexical richness, and speech sentiment displayed moderate to high effect sizes (𝜼2 between 0.062 and 0.143, p < 0.02). A support vector machine (SVM) model based on 10 acoustic features showed a high performance (AUC = 0.93) in differentiating between HCs and patients with MDD, comparable to an SVM based on the BDI-II (AUC = 0.99, p = 0.01).

conclusionsThis study identified robust speech features associated with MDD. A machine learning model based on speech features yielded similar results to an established pen-and-paper depression assessment. In the future, these findings may shape voice-based biomarkers, enhancing clinical diagnosis and MDD monitoring.

Indexed as

BiomarkersMajor Depressive DisorderSupport Vector MachineAdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesSpeechSpeech AcousticsBiomarkersDepressionMachine learningPrecision psychiatrySpeech biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID39533239
PMCPMC11559157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.