ArticleSchizophrenia research. Cognition2026
From thought to language: Comparing schizophrenia spectrum disorders and Wernicke's aphasia with machine learning and LLMs.
Article in Schizophrenia research. Cognition, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) and Wernicke's aphasia (WA) both disrupt meaningful speech, yet they arise from fundamentally different disturbances in thought and language. SSD is defined by formal thought disorder, in which disorganized thinking is inferred from abnormalities in speech, whereas WA reflects a primary breakdown of language implementation following focal brain damage. We investigated whether quantitative markers of lexical-semantic, syntactic structure, and semantic coherence in spontaneous speech can distinguish SSD, WA, and healthy controls. Using Natural Language Processing techniques, we extracted syntactic, lexical and local semantic similarity features from spontaneous speech transcripts and used them in supervised machine learning models to classify diagnostic groups. In parallel, an instruction-tuned large language model (LLM) was used in a zero-shot setting to assign transcripts to diagnostic categories and to track the severity of language disturbance. Our results showed a distinct linguistic pattern, particularly in syntactic and local semantic organization for WA, indicating a paradigmatic language disorder. By contrast, the same features were less effective in distinguishing SSD from matched controls, in line with the view that SSD reflects a more diffuse disturbance of thought that only partially manifests in surface language. Zero-shot LLM classifications approached the performance of supervised models for WA-related contrasts and were sensitive to graded language disturbance. At the same time, strong task and dataset effects underscored the need for carefully controlled speech elicitation. Together, these findings highlight both the promise and the limitations of automated language analysis for clinical diagnostics and for understanding speech and thought abnormalities.
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.