Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41388139›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2025

Evaluating spoken language as a biomarker for automated screening of cognitive impairment.

Maria R Lima, Alexander Capstick, Fatemeh Geranmayeh, Ramin Nilforooshan, Maja Matarić, Ravi Vaidyanathan, Payam Barnaghi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Exploratory associations between APOE-εFrontiers in neurology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maria R LimaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK. maria.lima@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6032-3042
Alexander CapstickUK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-8045
Fatemeh GeranmayehDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1112-786X
Ramin NilforooshanUK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre, London, UK.
Maja MatarićDepartment of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ravi Vaidyanathan *Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9625-4544
Payam Barnaghi *UK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8591-9638

Funding

RCUK | Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) EP/W031892/1RCUK | Medical Research Council (MRC) MR/T001402/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely and accurate assessment of cognitive impairment remains a major unmet need. Speech biomarkers offer a scalable, non-invasive, cost-effective solution for automated screening. However, the clinical utility of machine learning (ML) remains limited by interpretability and generalisability to real-world speech datasets.

methodsWe evaluate explainable ML for screening of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) and severity prediction using benchmark DementiaBank speech (N = 291, 64% female, 69.8 ± 8.6 years). We validate generalisability on pilot data collected in-residence (N = 22, 59% female, 76.2 ± 8.0 years). To enhance clinical utility, we stratify risk for actionable triage and assess linguistic feature importance.

resultsWe show that a Random Forest trained on linguistic features for ADRD detection achieves a mean sensitivity of 69.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 66.4-72.5) and specificity of 83.3% (78.0-88.7). On pilot data, this model yields a mean sensitivity of 70.0% (58.0-82.0) and specificity of 52.5% (39.3-65.7). For prediction of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, a Random Forest Regressor achieves a mean absolute MMSE error of 3.7 (3.7-3.8), with comparable performance of 3.3 (3.1-3.5) on pilot data. Risk stratification improves specificity by 13% on the test set, offering a pathway for clinical triage. Linguistic features associated with ADRD include increased use of pronouns and adverbs, greater disfluency, reduced analytical thinking, lower lexical diversity, and fewer words that reflect a psychological state of completion.

conclusionsOur predictive modelling shows promise for integration with conversational technology at home to monitor cognitive health and triage higher-risk individuals, enabling early screening and intervention.

Identifiers

PMID41388139
PMCPMC12770543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.