ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Low-burden speech-based screening of depressive symptoms using ultra-short speech samples.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Speech holds promise for depressive symptom screening, but practical applications require clearer guidance on effective segmentation, optimal speech tasks, minimum duration, and feature-model matching. Objective: To enable low-burden screening for depressive symptoms, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of short speech samples and systematically investigate how to identify the optimal practical combination of different speech tasks, time-window lengths, and the matching between features and models. Methods: Using the HMU-DDAC-24 dataset of 143 participants aged 18-22 years, we evaluated 10 segmentation lengths (0.1-15 s), 5 models (Random Forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Transformer, Extended Long Short-Term Memory (xLSTM)), and 3 feature types (frame-level, statistical, fused). We also assessed 19 window lengths (1-35 s) across four speech tasks and their combinations. In addition, supplementary cross-dataset validation analysis was performed using the external Emotional Audio-Textual Depression (EATD) dataset. Results: Frame-level features performed best with sequence models and short windows (0.1-2 s; Transformer accuracy: 0.731 at 2 s). Statistical features paired best with tree models and short windows (Random Forest accuracy: 0.698 at 1 s). Fused features improved tree models (Random Forest accuracy: 0.703 at 4 s) but introduced noise into sequence models. Task 4 (positive recall) achieved the best overall performance (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) = 0.860), outperforming all single and combined tasks, showing no multi-task synergy. A 1-s segment performed comparably to full-length speech (3.14% relative performance loss). Kullback-Leibler divergence analysis showed short segments closely approximated the full recording's distribution (Task 4 KL = 9.56 at 1 s). Conclusions: When combined with appropriate speech tasks and feature-model matching, short speech samples can facilitate low-burden screening for depressive symptoms. Supplementary analysis on the EATD dataset supported these trends, though absolute performance depended on feature representation. We recommend positive recall with 2-s truncation, frame-level features, and Transformer for accuracy-oriented settings; and 1-s truncation, statistical features, and Random Forest for resource-limited settings. These findings may inform rapid, remote speech-based screening for depressive symptoms, especially in resource-limited primary-care settings.
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.