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

TL;DR

This systematic review examines how artificial intelligence and speech/language processing are used to predict Alzheimer's Disease, highlighting promising results but also significant challenges in standardization and clinical translation.

Contribution

The paper provides a comprehensive synthesis of research from 2000 to 2019 on AI-based speech and language methods for Alzheimer's diagnosis, identifying key limitations and future strategies.

Findings

Promising results across studies in AI-based Alzheimer's prediction

Few studies have been implemented in clinical practice

Main limitations include poor standardization and limited comparability

Abstract

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.