ArticlePsychiatry research2026
ACES: ascertaining diagnosis classification with elicited speech in individuals with heterogeneous, comorbid psychiatric disorders.
Article in Psychiatry research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automated analysis of speech and language provides a critical opportunity for developing a scalable tool for general medical settings to aid in psychiatric diagnosis and triage. In a cross-diagnostic highly comorbid sample, we evaluated the contribution of speech and language features to diagnostic classification through a hierarchical, dichotomous approach: first distinguishing healthy volunteers (HV) vs. participants with any psychiatric disorder (Split 1), then identifying those with serious mental illness (SMI) vs. other psychiatric disorders (Split 2). Speech was collected from 266 participants via picture description, verbal fluency, paragraph reading, and open-ended verbal journaling tasks. We extracted 640 interpretable features spanning acoustic, temporal, lexical, syntactic, discourse, and coherence domains. LightGBM models were trained with 5-fold cross-validation comparing all combinations of speech tasks, and SHAP values were plotted for feature importance. For Split 1, the best-performing model achieved F1=0.865 combining picture description and journaling tasks, with picture description alone reaching F1=0.830. For Split 2, performance was moderate (F1=0.626), with picture description also as the best single task. Top features for Split 1 included amplitude instability (shimmer) and restricted pitch variance; Split 2 was influenced by articulation rate and filled pauses. This study represents a novel classification approach in a naturalistic, clinically complex sample. Findings suggest that a brief, explainable speech-based assessment may be able to identify individuals who need further evaluation for psychiatric disorders. External validation, bias auditing, and deployment studies are warranted to assess clinical impact.
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.