ArticleBrain communications2026
Artificial intelligence-based speech error detection to differentiate primary progressive aphasia variants.
Article in Brain communications, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence-based approaches to speech analysis have the potential to assist with objective speech error analysis in aphasia but off-the shelf tools often fail to detect speech errors due to prioritizing 'fluent transcription'. Speech production errors (dysfluencies) are hallmark diagnostic features of the nonfluent and logopenic variants of primary progressive aphasia, yet they can be challenging to detect and characterize even by expert clinicians. This study aimed to evaluate whether the novel automated lightweight Scalable Speech Dysfluency Modeling system, specifically designed to detect dysfluencies, could accurately distinguish primary progressive aphasia variants using voice recordings of individuals reading a brief passage. Participants included a total of 104 individuals, 40 with non-fluent primary progressive aphasia and 40 with logopenic primary progressive aphasia (matched on disease severity), and 24 healthy controls who read aloud the 'Grandfather Passage' as part of a widely used motor speech evaluation. We automatically extracted ten speech error (dysfluency) variables, including insertions, replacements, and deletions at both phoneme- and word-levels, and phoneme-level prolongations and repetitions. Group differences were assessed via ANOVAs controlling for age, education, and disease severity (Mini-Mental State Examination and Clinical Dementia Rating sum-of-boxes). To test clinical relevance, we performed correlation analyses with motor speech evaluation ratings provided by experienced speech-language pathologists (i.e. gold standard) within the non-fluent primary progressive aphasia group. Classification performance was assessed by training random forest and XGBoost machine-learning models including 5-fold cross-validation. All individuals read the entire passage in less than five minutes. The lightweight Scalable Speech Dysfluency Modeling system detected 8 of the 10 predefined dysfluency features at sufficient frequency to include them in subsequent analyses. All eight features distinguished primary progressive aphasia from controls (
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.