论文标题

人工智能,语音和语言处理方法监测阿尔茨海默氏病:系统评价

Artificial Intelligence, speech and language processing approaches to monitoring Alzheimer's Disease: a systematic review

论文作者

Garcia, Sofia de la Fuente, Ritchie, Craig, Luz, Saturnino

论文摘要

语言是阿尔茨海默氏病临床信息的宝贵来源,因为它与神经变性同时下降。因此,言语和语言数据已与其诊断有关。本文总结了有关人工智能,言语和语言处理的最新发现,以预测阿尔茨海默氏病背景下的认知能力下降,详细介绍了当前的研究程序,突出了它们的局限性并提出了解决这些问题的策略。我们对2000年至2019年的原始研究进行了系统的综述,在Prospero注册(参考CRD42018116606)。跨学科搜索涵盖了有关工程(ACM和IEEE),心理学(Psycinfo),Medicine(PubMed和Embase)和Web Science的六个数据库。将相关论文的参考书目筛选到2019年12月。从3,654个搜索结果中,根据资格标准选择了51篇文章。四个表总结了他们的发现:研究细节(目标,人口,干预,比较,方法和结果),数据详细信息(大小,类型,方式,注释,注释,平衡,研究的可用性和研究语言),方法论(预处理,特征产生,特征生成,机器学习,评估和结果)以及临床适用性(研究,临床潜在的潜在的偏见,bias和of Bias和限制)。虽然在几乎所有51项研究中都报道了有希望的结果,但在临床研究或实践中很少实施。我们得出的结论是,该领域的主要局限性是标准化差,结果的可比性有限以及研究目标与临床应用之间的一定程度的断开连接。试图缩小这些差距的尝试应支持将未来研究转化为临床实践的翻译。

Language is a valuable source of clinical information in Alzheimer's Disease, as it declines concurrently with neurodegeneration. Consequently, speech and language data have been extensively studied in connection with its diagnosis. This paper summarises current findings on the use of artificial intelligence, speech and language processing to predict cognitive decline in the context of Alzheimer's Disease, detailing current research procedures, highlighting their limitations and suggesting strategies to address them. We conducted a systematic review of original research between 2000 and 2019, registered in PROSPERO (reference CRD42018116606). An interdisciplinary search covered six databases on engineering (ACM and IEEE), psychology (PsycINFO), medicine (PubMed and Embase) and Web of Science. Bibliographies of relevant papers were screened until December 2019. From 3,654 search results 51 articles were selected against the eligibility criteria. Four tables summarise their findings: study details (aim, population, interventions, comparisons, methods and outcomes), data details (size, type, modalities, annotation, balance, availability and language of study), methodology (pre-processing, feature generation, machine learning, evaluation and results) and clinical applicability (research implications, clinical potential, risk of bias and strengths/limitations). While promising results are reported across nearly all 51 studies, very few have been implemented in clinical research or practice. We concluded that the main limitations of the field are poor standardisation, limited comparability of results, and a degree of disconnect between study aims and clinical applications. Attempts to close these gaps should support translation of future research into clinical practice.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源