SynthesisAge and ageing2025
Diagnostic utility of speech-based biomarkers in mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards a Multidimensional Model of Neurocognitive Disorders (MOND Model): Integrating Evidence from a Critical Review into a Model for Future Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Speech as a dynamic biomarker of physical aging: a longitudinal study.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Can speech-based AI transform cognitive impairment screening?Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Developing a Multimodal Screening Algorithm for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Early Dementia in Home Health Care: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study Using Speech Analysis, Large Language Models, and Electronic Health Records.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Applying Multiple Machine Learning Models to Classify Mild Cognitive Impairment from Speech in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
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
backgroundAmong various tools developed for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) detection, analysing speech features is a non-invasive and cost-effective approach that shows promise for early detection. This review aimed to systematically synthesise and analyse current evidence on the diagnostic utility of speech-based biomarkers for identifying MCI.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Ovid Medline and PsycINFO databases were searched up to April 2025 without restrictions on language, article status or year.
resultsOf 4432 identified records, 54 peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria. Fixed-effects meta-analyses showed pooled estimates of 80.0% 'accuracy' [95% confidence intervals (CI): 70.0%-89.0%, P < .001, n = 21], 78.0% 'area under the curve' (95% CI: 70.0%-86.0%, P < .001, n = 21), 80.0% 'sensitivity' (95% CI: 71.0%-90.0%, P < .001, n = 22), and 77.0% 'specificity' (95% CI: 65.0%-89.0%, P < .001, n = 15) in differentiating MCI from cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals. Egger's regression tests indicated no publication bias (P ≥ .299), and the I2 statistic revealed no heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0.00%, P = 1.00). Four studies also included a subjective cognitive decline group, reporting significant differences in certain speech features compared to CU.
conclusionsSpeech analysis demonstrates moderate classification performance, with balanced sensitivity and specificity, in distinguishing MCI from CU, suggesting its potential as an accurate and cost-effective diagnostic tool for MCI detection. Further research is needed to address variations in study methodologies, refine speech analysis protocols and validate findings in diverse populations to enhance generalisability.
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.