SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Speech Foundation Models for Parkinson’s Disease Detection: A Layer-Wise Comparison with Handcrafted Acoustics Across Two Cohorts

· 2026-08-18

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-10611782/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract Foundation models have transformed speech processing, but their value for clinical voice analysis, particularly in Parkinson’s disease (PD), remains largely unexplored. In this study, we compare layer-wise representations from several foundation-model families (Whisper, Wav2Vec 2.0, OmniASR, NVIDIA Nemotron, and Qwen3-ASR) with a handcrafted acoustic baseline using sentence reading and sustained vowels from independent cohorts (PC-GITA and NeuroVoz). On sentence reading, the best foundation-model configurations achieved segment-level F1-scores of approximately 0.88 in both cohorts, above the handcrafted acoustic baseline. Their advantage on sustained vowels was smaller and more cohort-dependent, with overlapping uncertainty in participant-level comparisons. Soft-voting aggregation generally improved participant-level discrimination. Intermediate-to-late encoder layers most often yielded the strongest representations, although optimal depth varied by architecture and task. Stratified analyses revealed cohort disparities, F1-scores were higher for male speakers in PC-GITA and for senior speakers in NeuroVoz, so foundation-model representations alone do not remove demographic performance gaps. Overall, these results support speech foundation models as promising feature extractors for PD detection and motivate validation in larger clinical cohorts.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.