Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Digital remote assessment of speech acoustics in cognitively unimpaired adults: feasibility, reliability and associations with amyloid pathology
Rosanne L van den Berg, Casper de Boer, Marissa D Zwan, Roos J Jutten, Mariska van Liere, Marie-Christine A B J van de Glind, Mark A Dubbelman, Lisa Marie Schlüter et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2024-08-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The speech assessment was feasible, indicated by 91.6% adherence and usability scores of 86.0 ± 9.9. High reliability (ICC ≥ 0.75) was found across averaged speech samples. Aβ-positive individuals displayed a higher pause-to-word ratio in picture description (B = -0.05, p = 0.040) and journal-prompt storytelling (B = -0.07, p = 0.032) than Aβ-negative individuals, although this effect lost significance after correction for multiple testing. Our findings support the feasibility and reliability of multi-day remote assessment of speech acoustics in cognitively unimpaired individuals with and without Aβ-pathology, which lays the foundation for the use of speech biomarkers in the context of early AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
van den Berg, R. L., de Boer, C., Zwan, M. D., Jutten, R. J., van Liere, M., van de Glind, M.-C. A. B. J., et al. (2024). Digital remote assessment of speech acoustics in cognitively unimpaired adults: feasibility, reliability and associations with amyloid pathology. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01543-3
Vancouver
van den Berg RL, de Boer C, Zwan MD, Jutten RJ, van Liere M, van de Glind M.-CABJ, et al. Digital remote assessment of speech acoustics in cognitively unimpaired adults: feasibility, reliability and associations with amyloid pathology. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2024. doi:10.1186/s13195-024-01543-3. PMID: 39090738.
BibTeX
@article{vandenberg2024-39090738,
author = {van den Berg, Rosanne L and de Boer, Casper and Zwan, Marissa D and Jutten, Roos J and van Liere, Mariska and van de Glind, Marie-Christine A B J and Dubbelman, Mark A and Schlüter, Lisa Marie and others},
title = {{Digital remote assessment of speech acoustics in cognitively unimpaired adults: feasibility, reliability and associations with amyloid pathology}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-024-01543-3},
pmid = {39090738},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01543-3}
}
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
- The speech assessment was feasible, indicated by 91.6% adherence and usability scores of 86.0 ± 9.9.
- High reliability (ICC ≥ 0.75) was found across averaged speech samples.
- Aβ-positive individuals displayed a higher pause-to-word ratio in picture description (B = -0.05, p = 0.040) and journal-prompt storytelling (B = -0.07, p = 0.032) than Aβ-negative individuals, although this effect lost significance after correction for multiple testing.
- Our findings support the feasibility and reliability of multi-day remote assessment of speech acoustics in cognitively unimpaired individuals with and without Aβ-pathology, which lays the foundation for the use of speech biomarkers in the context of early AD.
Study details
- Effect size91.6%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39090738) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 100 | — |
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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
239 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 239 tagged studies.