SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
Diagnostic accuracy of traditional and deep learning methods for detecting depression based on speech features: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDepression diagnosis faces challenges of subjectivity and delay. Speech features offer potential objective biomarkers, but a systematic comparison of traditional machine learning (TML) and deep learning (DL) models is lacking.
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of TML and DL models for depression detection using speech features, and to examine subgroup effects across sample size, validation strategy, language, and diagnostic criteria.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched 9 databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, IEEE, Cochrane, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science) from inception to April 2025. Eligible studies included clinically diagnosed patients with depression and healthy controls, assessed using speech-based TML or DL models, and reporting sensitivity, specificity, or the area under the curve (AUC). Risk of bias was evaluated using the diagnostic Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Random-effects bivariate models pooled diagnostic performance, and heterogeneity, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsTwenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (9 TML, 16 DL). TML models showed pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.88), specificity 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.90), and AUC 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92). DL models achieved pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88), specificity 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90), and AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89-0.93). Subgroup analyses indicated that diagnostic performance varied by sample size, validation strategy, language, and diagnostic criteria.
conclusionBoth TML and DL models demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy in speech-based depression detection. The marginal but consistent superiority of DL models supports their potential use in secondary care settings for confirmatory diagnosis, while TML remains valuable for primary care screening.. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.