ArticleDigital health
The role of AI in the diagnosis of speech and language disorders: A systematic mapping study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Speech and Language Therapy: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Clinical Applications and Outcomes.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to fulfill the current research gap pertaining to the lack of a comprehensive systematic mapping study (SMS) regarding the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning algorithms in the diagnosis of speech and language disorders (SLDs), and the extent to which such AI algorithms can automate this diagnostic process. Methods: An SMS has been implemented following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines; 19,774 research papers were screened resulting in 70 studies meeting purposely designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: The findings revealed multiple research gaps including substantial divide in the application of AI machine learning algorithms for diagnosing SLDs, where 91.43% versus 8.57% of the studies relating to SLDs, respectively. This is further exacerbated by the absence AI machine learning algorithms for diagnosing prevalent language disorders, such as developmental language disorders in children. Furthermore, most AI machine learning algorithms for diagnosing SLDs are focused on binary classification of these disorders, for example, healthy and pathological voices, but not providing detailed diagnostics, such as the impaired aspects and contextual SLDs severity. Finally, AI machine learning algorithms have predominantly focused on partially automating the SLD assessment phase of the diagnostic process (76%) compared to those that have extended the automation to partially include the diagnosis determination phase (24%). Conclusion: The effectiveness of AI machine learning algorithms in automating SLD diagnosis cannot be claimed without larger population datasets, highlighting a research gap for developing AI models to automate the four phases of the SLD diagnostic process and link them to treatment protocols in clinical settings.
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.