Cited by 51Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismVoice and Speech Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lexical and Acoustic Speech Features Relating to Alzheimer Disease Pathology

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared digital speech and language features of patients with amnestic Alzheimer disease (aAD) or logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) in a biologically confirmed cohort and related these features to neuropsychiatric test scores and CSF analytes. METHODS: We included patients with aAD or lvPPA with CSF (phosphorylated tau ([p-tau]/β-amyloid [Aβ] ≥0.09, and total tau/Aβ ≥0.34) or autopsy confirmation of AD pathology and age-matched healthy controls (HC) recruited at the Frontotemporal Degeneration Center of the University of Pennsylvania for a cross-sectional study. We extracted speech and language variables with automated lexical and acoustic pipelines from participants' oral picture descriptions. We compared the groups and correlated distinct features with clinical ratings and CSF p-tau levels. RESULTS: = 0.026) were correlated with patients' CSF p-tau levels. DISCUSSION: Our measures captured language and speech differences between the 2 phenotypes that traditional language-based clinical assessments failed to identify. This work demonstrates the potential of natural speech in reflecting underlying variants with AD pathology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.0000000000200581

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patients with amnestic or non-amnestic AD presentations produced more inflectional errors and fewer tense-inflected verbs than HC.

    “We and others have observed a similar finding in previous studies, 11 , 50 , 51 in which patients with amnestic or non‐amnestic AD presentations produced more inflectional errors (e.g., “She run” instead of “She runs”) and fewer tense‐inflected verbs than HC.”

    From Automatic classification of AD pathology in FTD phenotypes using natural speech (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results passage embedded under §2.7 reports that the non-amnestic lvPPA group produced fewer tense-inflected verbs than healthy controls, but the amnestic AD group did not differ significantly from controls (p=0.124). The paper’s lexical-pipeline description (§2.3) counts tense-inflected verbs but does not report inflectional errors such as “She run.” (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Adjective counts and lexical diversity of patients with cognitive impairment decreased compared to HC.

    “It has been observed that adjective counts and lexical diversity of patients with cognitive impairment decreased compared to HC. 11 , 44 , 61”

    From Automatic classification of AD pathology in FTD phenotypes using natural speech (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

    The reported comparisons in our copy (indexed under §2.7; page unavailable) show fewer adjectives in both the amnestic AD and lvPPA groups than in healthy controls. Lexical diversity was lower in lvPPA, but the AD group did not differ significantly from controls. The claim omits that distinction. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous connected speech research has largely focused on Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and PPA, with fewer studies focused on behavioral FTD variants.

    “Previous connected speech research has largely focused on Alzheimer disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment, and PPA, with fewer studies focused on behavioral FTD variants.14-16”

    From Automated Speech Analysis to Differentiate Frontal and Right Anterior Temporal Lobe Atrophy in Frontotemporal Dementia (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Background (page not available) says that much attention has been paid to AD and that many studies have characterized the language of a PPA variant, supporting those parts of the claim. It does not say that connected-speech research has largely focused on mild cognitive impairment or that fewer studies examine behavioral FTD variants; those terms appear in reference titles, not in a comparison of research volume. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There are linguistic similarities between people with the amnestic AD presentation and those with a non-amnestic lvPPA presentation with ADNC.

    “A recent study identified several linguistic similarities between people with the amnestic AD presentation and those with a non‐amnestic lvPPA presentation with AD neuropathologic change (ADNC), suggesting that speech features may be useful in identifying individuals with ADNC, regardless of their clinical presentation.”
  • Patients with various types of dementia tended to produce shorter and more frequent words than HC.

    “Additionally, patients with various types of dementia tended to produce shorter and more frequent words than HC. 11 , 44 , 62 , 63”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Loper E, Bird S. NLTK: the Natural Language Toolkit. In: ETMTNLP ’02: Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics. Philadelphia, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. 2002;63-70.
  2. 10.1044/2015 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cho, S., Cousins, K. A. Q., Shellikeri, S., Ash, S., Irwin, D. J., Liberman, M. Y., Grossman, M., & Nevler, N.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Cho, Sunghye
Venue
Neurology
Published
2022-07-26
Volume
99
Issue
4
Pages
e313-e322
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W4225246704
Cited by
51
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • National Institute on Aging (P01AG066597, K99AG073510, R01AG054519, P30AG072979)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS109260)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, speech features, lexical features, acoustic features, phosphorylated tau, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, Alzheimer disease pathology, natural speech, language assessment
MeSH terms
Acoustics, Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Aphasia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Speech, Biomarkers, Amyloid beta-Peptides

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review