ArticleJournal of mental health (Abingdon, England)2025
The language of paranoia: linguistic analysis of SMI speech with considerations of race and sex.
Article in Journal of mental health (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundLinguistic analysis, notably using conceptually derived linguistic categories, has been used to quantify various aspects of serious mental illness. It has the potential for understanding paranoia, defined in terms of perceived and intentional threats from others. However, paranoia and the language expressing it potentially varies due to demographic factors, notably race and sex.
aimsThis study aims to expand upon prior findings linking linguistic expression and serious mental illness symptoms by focusing on paranoia and evaluating potential moderating roles of race and sex in two archived studies using two separate speaking tasks.
methodsWe hypothesized that a limited feature set of linguistic categories derived from these speaking tasks would accurately classify clinical ratings of paranoia using regularized regression. It was further hypothesized that these relationships would vary as a function of Black versus White and male versus female identities.
resultsUnexpectedly, there were no differences in model accuracy as a function of race and sex, suggesting no overt bias or differential functioning from demographics in our models.
conclusionsResults highlight the strengths and limitations of using linguistic analysis to understand paranoia. Exploring variation amongst paranoia scoring could improve model accuracy across different demographic groups.
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.