Home › Research › Digital health tools
Acoustic Analysis of Primary Care Patient-provider Conversations to Screen for Cognitive Impairment
Colonel JT, Becker J, Chan L, Faherty C, van Vleck T, Curtis L, Wisnivesky J, Federman A et al.. medRxiv, 2025-12-29
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Results The mean age was 66.8 years and 21% had CI. Results generalized to the external site with similar performance (AUC-ROC=0.727, 95%CI=0.714-0.740; F max(CI) =0.459, 95%CI=0.442-0.476). These findings support the feasibility of passive, speech-based screening during routine primary care. The algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 83%, specificity of 44%, and positive predictive value of 28%, identifying a subset of primary care patients at higher risk for cognitive impairment. Meaning These findings suggest that short segments of naturalistic clinical dialogue may contain useful acoustic signals for passively screening patients for cognitive impairment.
Key findings
- Results The mean age was 66.8 years and 21% had CI.
- Results generalized to the external site with similar performance (AUC-ROC=0.727, 95%CI=0.714-0.740; F max(CI) =0.459, 95%CI=0.442-0.476).
- These findings support the feasibility of passive, speech-based screening during routine primary care.
- The algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 83%, specificity of 44%, and positive predictive value of 28%, identifying a subset of primary care patients at higher risk for cognitive impairment.
- Meaning These findings suggest that short segments of naturalistic clinical dialogue may contain useful acoustic signals for passively screening patients for cognitive impairment.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants787
- Effect size30.4%; 28.7%; 32.1%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 34 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 34 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 787 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 34 out of 100. |
| Total | 34 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Colonel, J. T., Becker, J., Chan, L., Faherty, C., van Vleck, T., Curtis, L., et al. (2025). Acoustic Analysis of Primary Care Patient-provider Conversations to Screen for Cognitive Impairment. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.27.25343088
Vancouver
Colonel JT, Becker J, Chan L, Faherty C, van Vleck T, Curtis L, et al. Acoustic Analysis of Primary Care Patient-provider Conversations to Screen for Cognitive Impairment. medRxiv. 2025. doi:10.64898/2025.12.27.25343088.
BibTeX
@article{colonel2025-a33a6b61,
author = {Colonel, J. T. and Becker, J. and Chan, L. and Faherty, C. and van Vleck, T. and Curtis, L. and Wisnivesky, J. and Federman, A. and others},
title = {{Acoustic Analysis of Primary Care Patient-provider Conversations to Screen for Cognitive Impairment}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.64898/2025.12.27.25343088},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.27.25343088}
}