Multilingual Cognitive Impairment Detection in the Era of Foundation Models

Damar Hoogland, Boshko Koloski, Jaya Caporusso, Tine Kolenik, Ana Zwitter Vitez, Senja Pollak, Christina Manouilidou, Matthew Purver · Apr 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Apr 8, 2026, 7:22 AM

Fresh

Extraction refreshed

Apr 10, 2026, 7:13 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

We evaluate cognitive impairment (CI) classification from transcripts of speech in English, Slovene, and Korean. We compare zero-shot large language models (LLMs) used as direct classifiers under three input settings -- transcript-only, linguistic-features-only, and combined -- with supervised tabular approaches trained under a leave-one-out protocol. The tabular models operate on engineered linguistic features, transcript embeddings, and early or late fusion of both modalities. Across languages, zero-shot LLMs provide competitive no-training baselines, but supervised tabular models generally perform better, particularly when engineered linguistic features are included and combined with embeddings. Few-shot experiments focusing on embeddings indicate that the value of limited supervision is language-dependent, with some languages benefiting substantially from additional labelled examples while others remain constrained without richer feature representations. Overall, the results suggest that, in small-data CI detection, structured linguistic signals and simple fusion-based classifiers remain strong and reliable signals.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.