ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Deeper insight into speech characteristics of patients at ultra-high risk using classification and explainability models.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Speech-based computational approaches for classification and symptom monitoring in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Linguistic Markers in At-Risk Mental States Using Natural Language Processing: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- PEPAMARKER: a multicenter cohort study protocol on predictive biomarkers of affectiveFrontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Peculiar use of language and even language deficits are one of the well-known signs of schizophrenia. Different language features analyzed using natural language processing and machine learning have been reported to differentiate patients at ultra-high risk for psychosis. However, it has not always been explained how, and to what extent, those linguistic markers allow the distinction of patients. This study aims to find relevant linguistic markers for classifying patients at ultra-high risk and explain how the detected markers contribute to the classification. Methods: The first consultations with a psychiatrist of 68 patients (15 not-at-risk patients, 45 at-risk patients, and 8 patients with first episode psychosis) were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and annotated for analyses using natural language processing. A gradient-boosted decision tree algorithm was tested to evaluate its potential to correctly classify three categories of patients and find relevant linguistic markers at the level of lexical richness, semantic coherence, speech disfluency, and syntactic complexity. The Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique was used to handle imbalanced data, and the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values were computed to measure feature importance and each feature's contributions to the classification. Results: The model yielded good performance, that is, 0.82 accuracy, 0.82 F2-score, 0.85 precision, 0.82 recall, and 0.86 ROC-AUC score, with four linguistic variables that concern weak coherence, the use of "I," and filled pauses. Discussion: The findings in this study suggest that weak coherence play a key role in classification. No significant differences in the use of "I" and filled pauses were found between groups using a statistical test, but an explainability model showed its different contributions. The contribution of each linguistic feature to the classification by patient group provided deeper insight into linguistic manifestations of each patient group and their subtle differences, which could help better analyze and understand patients' language behaviors.
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.