Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42795331›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Voice-Based Screening of Depression and Anxiety Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning: A Scoping Review of Methods and Clinical Readiness.

Mădălina Muntean-Codrea, Bogdan Nemeș, Horia George Coman, Ciprian Ionuț Băcilă, Raluca Nicoleta Trifu, Radu Flaviu Oroian, Marinela Minodora Manea, Dana Cristina Herța, Sergiu Șușman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mădălina Muntean-CodreaDepartment of Medical Psychology and Psychiatry, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0009-0008-5349-6309
Bogdan NemeșDepartment of Medical Psychology and Psychiatry, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-1381-798X
Horia George ComanDepartment of Medical Psychology and Psychiatry, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0001-8734-2852
Ciprian Ionuț BăcilăFaculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-0029-7591
Raluca Nicoleta TrifuDepartment of Medical Psychology and Psychiatry, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-9883-3697
Radu Flaviu OroianZalău County Emergency Hospital, 450129 Zalău, Romania.
Marinela Minodora ManeaDepartment of Medical Psychology and Psychiatry, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0009-0008-9983-406X
Dana Cristina HerțaDepartment of Medical Psychology and Psychiatry, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-1437-3361
Sergiu ȘușmanDepartment of Histology, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-5552-3226

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the high global prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders, access to early clinical assessment remains limited for many. Although this field has grown rapidly, existing reviews have focused primarily on technical performance, with limited systematic attention to whether current models meet the prerequisites for clinical implementation. This scoping review mapped methodological approaches across this domain and evaluated clinical readiness using five predefined indicators: sample size adequacy, external validation, prospective data collection, real-world evaluation, and model explainability. Searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore (March 2026) identified 2463 records; 34 studies (37 dataset evaluations) were included. The majority of studies (91%) were published from 2022 onwards. Depression was the primary target in 91% of studies, while only one study addressed anxiety. Hand-crafted acoustic features were the most frequent (57%), while classical machine learning was the most common model type (32%). External validation was conducted in only 32% of evaluations and real-world testing in 8%. Clinical readiness was classified as Low in 24%, Moderate in 65%, and High in 11% of evaluations. No evaluation met all five indicators simultaneously. These findings apply primarily to voice-based depression screening; 36 of 37 evaluations targeted depression, and the evidence base for anxiety disorders is limited to a single evaluation, precluding comparable characterisation for that condition. The principal challenges to clinical implementation are insufficient external validation, reliance on laboratory conditions, narrow linguistic coverage, and inconsistent metric reporting. The framework applied in this scoping review provides a replicable structure for assessing the clinical validity of AI-driven psychiatric screening tools.

Indexed as

anxiety disordersclinical readinessdeep learningdepressive disordermachine learningscoping reviewspeech analysisvoice biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID42795331
PMCPMC13608756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.