Parkinsonism & related disorders · 2023
Utilizing speech analysis to differentiate progressive supranuclear palsy from Parkinson's disease.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kang Kyurim, Nunes Adonay S, Sharma Mansi, Hall A J, Mishra Ram Kinker, Casado Jose, Cole Rylee, Derhammer Marc, Barchard Gregory, Najafi Bijan, Vaziri Ashkan, Wills Anne-Marie, Pantelyat Alexander
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Distinguishing Parkinson's disease (PD) from Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) at early disease stages is important for clinical trial enrollment and clinical care/prognostication.
METHODS: We recruited 21 participants with PSP(n = 11) or PD(n = 10) with reliable caregivers. Standardized passage reading, counting, and sustained phonation were recorded on the BioDigit Home tablet (BioSensics LLC, Newton, MA USA), and speech features from the assessments were analyzed using the BioDigit Speech platform (BioSensics LLC, Newton, MA USA). An independent t-test was performed to compare each speech feature between PSP and PD participants. We also performed Spearman's correlations to evaluate associations between speech measures and clinical scores (e.g., PSP rating scales and MoCA). In addition, the model's performance in classifying PSP and PD was evaluated using Rainbow passage reading analysis.
RESULTS: During Rainbow passage reading, PSP participants had a significantly slower articulation rate (2.45(0.49) vs 3.60(0.47) words/minute), lower speech-to-pause ratio (2.33(1.08) vs 3.67(1.18)), intelligibility dynamic time warping (DTW, 0.26(0.19) vs 0.53(0.26)), and similarity DTW (0.43(0.27) vs 0.67(0.13)) compared to PD participants. PSP participants also had longer pause times (17.24(5.47) vs 8.45(3.13) sec) and longer total signal times (52.44(6.67) vs (36.67(6.73) sec) when reading the passage. In terms of the phonation 'a', PSP participants showed a significant higher spectral entropy, spectral centroid, and spectral spread compared to PD participants and no differences were found for phonation 'e'. PD participants had more accurate reverse number counts than PSP participants (14.89(3.86) vs 7.36(4.67)). PSP Rating Scale (PSPRS) dysarthria (r = 0.79, p = 0.004) and bulbar item scores (r = 0.803, p = 0.005) were positively correlated with articulation rate in reverse number counts. Correct reverse number counts were positively correlated with total Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (r = 0.703, p = 0.016). Machine learning models using passage reading-derived measures obtained an AUC of 0.93, and the sensitivity/specificity in correctly classifying PSP and PD participants were 0.95 and 0.90, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of differentiating PSP from PD using a digital health technology platform. Further multi-center studies are needed to expand and validate our initial findings.
METHODS: We recruited 21 participants with PSP(n = 11) or PD(n = 10) with reliable caregivers. Standardized passage reading, counting, and sustained phonation were recorded on the BioDigit Home tablet (BioSensics LLC, Newton, MA USA), and speech features from the assessments were analyzed using the BioDigit Speech platform (BioSensics LLC, Newton, MA USA). An independent t-test was performed to compare each speech feature between PSP and PD participants. We also performed Spearman's correlations to evaluate associations between speech measures and clinical scores (e.g., PSP rating scales and MoCA). In addition, the model's performance in classifying PSP and PD was evaluated using Rainbow passage reading analysis.
RESULTS: During Rainbow passage reading, PSP participants had a significantly slower articulation rate (2.45(0.49) vs 3.60(0.47) words/minute), lower speech-to-pause ratio (2.33(1.08) vs 3.67(1.18)), intelligibility dynamic time warping (DTW, 0.26(0.19) vs 0.53(0.26)), and similarity DTW (0.43(0.27) vs 0.67(0.13)) compared to PD participants. PSP participants also had longer pause times (17.24(5.47) vs 8.45(3.13) sec) and longer total signal times (52.44(6.67) vs (36.67(6.73) sec) when reading the passage. In terms of the phonation 'a', PSP participants showed a significant higher spectral entropy, spectral centroid, and spectral spread compared to PD participants and no differences were found for phonation 'e'. PD participants had more accurate reverse number counts than PSP participants (14.89(3.86) vs 7.36(4.67)). PSP Rating Scale (PSPRS) dysarthria (r = 0.79, p = 0.004) and bulbar item scores (r = 0.803, p = 0.005) were positively correlated with articulation rate in reverse number counts. Correct reverse number counts were positively correlated with total Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (r = 0.703, p = 0.016). Machine learning models using passage reading-derived measures obtained an AUC of 0.93, and the sensitivity/specificity in correctly classifying PSP and PD participants were 0.95 and 0.90, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of differentiating PSP from PD using a digital health technology platform. Further multi-center studies are needed to expand and validate our initial findings.