ReviewBrain and behavior2026
Use of Automation Technologies and Data Mining in Speech Recognition for Autism.
Review in Brain and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Automation Technologies and Data Mining in Speech Recognition for Autism.Brain and behavior · 2026Review
- Exploring motor speech patterns in adults with minimally verbal autism spectrum disorder through surface electromyography.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEarly identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is critical for improving long-term outcomes, and speech offers a noninvasive source of clinically relevant biomarkers. However, manual speech analysis is time-consuming and difficult to scale. With advances in digital recording, signal processing, and artificial intelligence, researchers have increasingly deployed automated tools and data-mining methods to characterize speech and language in ASD.
methodsThis structured narrative review summarizes methodological developments in speech-based ASD assessment from 1994 to 2025, spanning diverse tasks and recording settings and focusing on automated tools, data-mining methods, and their clinical translation. We first consider core automated toolchains, including LENA, Praat, HTK/FAVE, CMU Sphinx, Kaldi, AutoSALT, openSMILE/eGeMAPS, diarization systems, and foundation-model ASR systems (e.g., Whisper), as well as modern self-supervised encoders such as wav2vec 2.0 and TRILLsson. Their typical use cases, psychometric properties, and limitations are highlighted. We then chart the progression of data-mining and machine-learning approaches from early logistic regression and clustering, through regularized regression, SVMs, and tree ensembles, to CNN/LSTM sequence models and transformer-based text and speech models (e.g., BERT, LLMs).
resultsAcross these stages, automated indices of prosody, voice quality, linguistic content, and interactional behavior show moderate-to-high accuracy for ASD detection and meaningful associations with clinician-rated severity. Nonetheless, various problems persist: performance often degrades across languages, ages, tasks, and recording settings; evaluation and reporting remain heterogeneous; datasets are typically small and single-site; and privacy, fairness, interpretability, and computational efficiency pose persistent barriers to deployment, highlighting the need for target-context benchmarking and pre-specified evaluation/reporting.
conclusionWe outline three priority strategies to guide future work toward scalable, clinically credible ASD speech assessment and longitudinal monitoring: optimize and integrate existing toolchains, enable global yet privacy-preserving data sharing, and leverage cross-domain innovations in enhancement, label efficiency, and explainable, edge-ready AI.
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.