ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Reevaluating the classification of pediatric speech sound disorders: a ground truthing perspective.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. 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.
- Foundations for pediatric vocal biomarkers: age-aware phoneme recognition and latent-space error analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pediatric Speech Sound Disorders (SSDs) are conventionally diagnosed using auditory-perceptual assessments, heavily relying on International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) transcriptions. This approach, while prevalent, is increasingly criticized due to inherent perceptual biases, limited sensitivity to subtle speech motor variations, and insufficient reflection of underlying speech mechanisms. This paper critically re-examines a widely used diagnostic classification system for pediatric SSDs, namely Dodd's Model of Differential Diagnosis (MDD), emphasizing the limitations of perceptual methods and advocating for instrumental techniques to address significant ground truthing issues. Critical analysis in this paper integrates evidence from perceptual research, instrumental phonetics, and speech motor development studies, highlighting discrepancies between traditional classification methods and modern instrumental data. Findings indicate profound limitations in current auditory-perceptual classification methods, particularly regarding their inability to detect subtle motoric impairments such as jaw sliding, covert motor contrasts, and undifferentiated tongue gestures. Evidence from instrumental studies supports a speech-motor rather than purely cognitive-linguistic basis for many pediatric SSDs, revealing significant inadequacies in current clinical practices. To avoid the narrow interpretation of "motor speech" as referring only to childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) or dysarthria, we explicitly broaden its scope to include a wider range of motoric influences on SSDs. Given these critical ground truthing concerns, the paper proposes adopting instrumental-based methodologies that offer greater precision in identifying underlying motor-based impairments, thereby promoting a more accurate and nuanced understanding of pediatric SSDs. Furthermore, the discussion advocates for adopting a dimensional rather than categorical classification framework, emphasizing gradual developmental trajectories and foundational speech motor skills. Aligning with modern precision medicine principles, the proposed approach aims to refine diagnostic accuracy, improve intervention effectiveness, and ultimately enhance clinical outcomes for children with SSDs.
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.