SynthesisJMIR mental health2025
Performance of Automatic Speech Analysis in Detecting Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Voice-Based Screening of Depression and Anxiety Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning: A Scoping Review of Methods and Clinical Readiness.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multimodal behavioral phenotyping for depressive-spectrum classification and severity estimation using eye tracking, facial behavior, and transcript-derived language.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- A multimodal feature fusion model integrating voice acoustic features and early key risk factors for early screening of postpartum depression: a prospective short-term longitudinal observational study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the high prevalence and significant burden of depression, underdiagnosis remains a persistent challenge. Automatic speech analysis (ASA) has emerged as a promising method for depression assessment. However, a comprehensive quantitative synthesis evaluating its diagnostic accuracy is still lacking.
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of ASA in detecting depression, considering both machine learning and deep learning approaches.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search across 8 databases, including MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar from January 2013 to April 1, 2025. We included studies published in English that evaluated the accuracy of ASA for detecting depression, and reported performance metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, or confusion matrices. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy-Revised. A 3-level meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled highest and lowest accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and precision. Meta-regressions and subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity across various factors, including type of publication, artificial intelligence algorithms, speech features, speech-eliciting tasks, ground truth assessment, validation approach, dataset, dataset language, participants' mean age, and sample size.
resultsOf the 1345 records identified, 105 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled mean of the highest accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and precision were 0.81 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.83), 0.84 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.86), 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), and 0.81 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.84), respectively, whereas the pooled mean of the lowest accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and precision were 0.66 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.69), 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.68), 0.60 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.66), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.70), respectively.
conclusionsASA shows promise as a method for detecting depression, though its readiness for clinical application as a standalone tool remains limited. At present, it should be regarded as a complementary method, with potential applications across diverse contexts. Further high-quality, peer-reviewed studies are needed to support the development of robust, generalizable models and to advance this emerging field.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023444431; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023444431.
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.