ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Automatic analysis of speech representations to assess psychological distress.
Article in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current mental health diagnostic methods are limited by subjective clinical interpretation. Automatic speech analysis is a promising technology for objective assessment. Objective: To evaluate and compare different speech-based representations (acoustic, phonetic, and time-frequency) and deep learning-based embeddings for discriminating symptoms associated with psychological distress. Methods: A secondary analysis of the Distress Analysis Interview Corpus (DAIC-WOZ) was conducted using recordings from 125 participants (3,069 responses). Speech representations included phonation, articulation, and prosody features extracted with DisVoice; phonetic features extracted with Phonet; time-frequency representations derived from Mexican hat wavelets; and deep embeddings extracted with the multilingual Wav2Vec 2.0 model XLSR-53. Two classification strategies were addressed at the response and participant levels using a Fully Connected Neural Network (FCNN) and a Support Vector Machine (SVM), respectively. Results: Prosody at the participant level achieved the highest mean performance (F1-score 0.67 Conclusion: Participant-level analysis provided more robust and consistent discriminative patterns than response-level approaches. Prosody and phonation achieved the best performance across speech representations, while phonetic, time-frequency, and deep speech representations did not outperform the best acoustic baseline. These findings suggest that, within the evaluated experimental setting, the aggregation strategy appears to have a stronger influence on performance than increasing representational complexity.
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.