Home › Research › Digital health tools
Alzheimer's Disease Detection via Large Pre-Trained Speech and Language Models: Taxonomy, Progress, and Open Challenges
Li Y, Pan Y, Liu Y, He L, Sun Q, Zhang S, Zhang W, Luz S et al.. PsyArXiv, 2026-09-03
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) detection from spoken language has advanced considerably with the rise of large pre-trained speech and language models, including wav2vec 2.0, BERT, generative LLMs, and emerging audio-LLMs. These models often report higher performance on shared AD detection benchmarks than handcrafted-feature pipelines, while reducing the need for manual feature design. Yet their advantages remain difficult to interpret: pre-trained representations are largely a black box, benchmark gains are not always statistically robust, and performance can vary substantially across languages, elicitation protocols, and clinical task definitions.This survey proposes a taxonomy of how large pre-trained speech and language models have been used for AD detection and progression-related tasks. We define Large Pre-trained Models (LPMs) as Transformer-based models trained with self-supervised or weakly supervised objectives, distinguishing them from earlier non-Transformer pre-trained representations. We then organize the literature into six usage strategies: direct application, fine-tuning, transfer learning, multitask learning, multilingual modeling, and generative-LLM-based assessment. Across these categories, we synthesize evidence from shared benchmarks and recent studies to answer four questions:1) what taxonomy captures how LPMs are used for AD detection;2) what progress and advantages do LPMs offer for AD detection;3) what challenges and limitations do LPMs exhibit; and4) what future opportunities and open tasks they present.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Li, Y., Pan, Y., Liu, Y., He, L., Sun, Q., Zhang, S., et al. (2026). Alzheimer's Disease Detection via Large Pre-Trained Speech and Language Models: Taxonomy, Progress, and Open Challenges. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/s57tz_v2
Vancouver
Li Y, Pan Y, Liu Y, He L, Sun Q, Zhang S, et al. Alzheimer's Disease Detection via Large Pre-Trained Speech and Language Models: Taxonomy, Progress, and Open Challenges. PsyArXiv. 2026. doi:10.31234/osf.io/s57tz_v2.
BibTeX
@article{li2026-67079121,
author = {Li, Y. and Pan, Y. and Liu, Y. and He, L. and Sun, Q. and Zhang, S. and Zhang, W. and Luz, S. and others},
title = {{Alzheimer's Disease Detection via Large Pre-Trained Speech and Language Models: Taxonomy, Progress, and Open Challenges}},
journal = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/s57tz_v2},
url = {https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/s57tz_v2}
}
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.
Key findings
- These models often report higher performance on shared AD detection benchmarks than handcrafted-feature pipelines, while reducing the need for manual feature design.
- Yet their advantages remain difficult to interpret: pre-trained representations are largely a black box, benchmark gains are not always statistically robust, and performance can vary substantially across languages, elicitation protocols, and clinical task definitions.This survey proposes a taxonomy of how large pre-trained speech and language models have been used for AD detection and progression-related tasks.
- We define Large Pre-trained Models (LPMs) as Transformer-based models trained with self-supervised or weakly supervised objectives, distinguishing them from earlier non-Transformer pre-trained representations.
- We then organize the literature into six usage strategies: direct application, fine-tuning, transfer learning, multitask learning, multilingual modeling, and generative-LLM-based assessment.
- Across these categories, we synthesize evidence from shared benchmarks and recent studies to answer four questions:1) what taxonomy captures how LPMs are used for AD detection;2) what progress and advantages do LPMs offer for AD detection;3) what challenges and limitations do LPMs exhibit; and4) what future opportunities and open tasks they present.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (PsyArXiv) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 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.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “convolutional”
205 studies in the library carry the topic tag “convolutional”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 205 tagged studies.