ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Design of an artificial intelligence model to screen spontaneous speech to detect Alzheimer's Disease.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a shortage of physicians trained in the specialized care of Alzheimer's disease (AD). One possible solution is to use machine learning (ML)/artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to screen for the effects of AD on speech patterns, a technique that has the potential for automation. Our objective was to evaluate the ability of various language processing/artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to classify subjects into AD and controls. Our study used the Pitt dataset (n = 549), from DementiaBank, a shared dataset of audio files of spontaneous speech using the standardized Cookie Theft Picture Description task. The dataset was divided into training (n = 337), development (n = 115) and test (n = 97) datasets. A series of language processing techniques were tested on their ability to classify subjects into AD and controls, including classical (Tfidf, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency), hybrid (Tfidf + text embeddings), neural classification and large language models. The hybrid model (Tfidf + text embeddings) was the best performing one, with accuracy and recall of 0.92 and 0.93 respectively on the test dataset. However, when tested on an independently collected validation dataset it only achieved 0.70 accuracy and 0.44 recall, performing well in identifying controls but missing some true AD cases. The model also demonstrated similar performance in identifying controls in a dataset that included a high proportion of diverse cognitive conditions, similar to referrals to a specialized memory clinic. AI techniques have demonstrated some utility for the classification of spontaneous speech audio files into those with AD and controls although these techniques could benefit from having enlarged datasets.
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.