Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
While extensive research has documented the cognitive changes associated with Parkinson's disease (PD), a relatively small portion of the empirical literature investigated the language abilities of individuals with PD. Recently, artificial intelligence applied to linguistic data has shown promising results in predicting the clinical diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders, but a deeper investigation of the current literature available on PD is lacking. This systematic review investigates the nature of language disorders in PD by assessing the contribution of machine learning (ML) to the classification of patients with PD. A total of 10 studies published between 2016 and 2023 were included in this review. Tasks used to elicit language were mainly structured or unstructured narrative discourse. Transcriptions were mostly analyzed using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. The classification accuracy (%) ranged from 43 to 94, sensitivity (%) ranged from 8 to 95, specificity (%) ranged from 3 to 100, AUC (%) ranged from 32 to 97. The most frequent optimal linguistic measures were lexico-semantic (40%), followed by NLP-extracted features (26%) and morphological consistency features (20%). Artificial intelligence applied to linguistic markers provides valuable insights into PD. However, analyzing measures derived from narrative discourse can be time-consuming, and utilizing ML requires specialized expertise. Moving forward, it is important to focus on facilitating the integration of both narrative discourse analysis and artificial intelligence into clinical practice.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.