Abstract
Recent work has suggested that disorganised speech might be a powerful predictor of later psychotic illness in clinical high risk subjects. To that end, several automated measures to quantify disorganisation of transcribed speech have been proposed. However, it remains unclear which measures are most predictive of psychosis-onset, how different measures relate to each other and what the best strategies are to elicit disorganised speech from participants. Here, we assessed the ability of twelve automated Natural Language Processing markers to differentiate transcribed speech excerpts from subjects at clinical high risk for psychosis (N=25), first episode psychosis patients (N=16) and healthy control subjects (N=13; N=54 in total). In-line with previous work, several of these measures showed significant differences between groups, including semantic coherence and speech graph connectivity. We also proposed two additional measures of repetition and whether speech was on topic, the latter of which exhibited significant group differences and outperformed the prior, related measure of tangentiality. Most measures examined were only weakly related to each other, suggesting they provide complementary information and that combining different measures could provide additional power to predict the onset of psychotic illness. Finally, we compared the ability of transcribed speech generated using different tasks to differentiate the groups. Speech generated from picture descriptions of the Thematic Apperception Test and a story re-telling task outperformed free speech, suggesting that choice of speech generation method may be an important consideration. Overall, quantitative speech markers represent a promising direction for future diagnostic applications for psychosis risk.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We thank the services users and volunteers who took part in this study, and the members of the Outreach and Support in South London (OASIS) team who were involved in the recruitment, management and clinical follow-up of the participants reported in this manuscript. We are also grateful to the experts by experience from the Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation Trust Service User and Carers Research Group, who gave constructive feedback on the manuscript. SEM was funded by a Fellowship from The Alan Turing Institute, London, and a Henslow Fellowship at Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge, funded by the Cambridge Philosophical Society. PEV is supported by a fellowship from MQ: Transforming Mental Health (MQF17_24). This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC or the Department of Health. The funder had no influence on the design of the study or interpretation of the results.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institute of Psychiatry Research Ethics Committee at King's College London.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* TJS and PM share joint last authorship.
Data Availability
Data is not available due to ethical reasons (participants did not agree for their data to be shared publicly). Code will be made available on publication.
