A Toolkit for Detecting Spurious Correlations in Speech Datasets

Speech-based Alzheimer's disease (AD) detection increasingly relies on speech-enhanced and curated versions of the Pitt Corpus, where speech enhancement, sample selection, and demographic balancing are often treated as beneficial preprocessing steps. However, whether these transformations improve real-world AD detection or instead affect model generalization and prediction behavior remains unclear. In this work, we revisit the role of speech preprocessing and dataset curation across widely used benchmarks for speech-based AD detection. We evaluate the speech quality of different datasets, the cross-dataset generalization of multiple deep learning models under matched and mismatched enhancement settings, and the behavior of several recent large audio-language models (LALMs). Experimental results show that across multiple supervised speech models, speech-enhanced datasets often improve in-domain performance while reducing robustness in cross-domain evaluation. Matched enhancement between training and test data alleviates, but does not eliminate, this degradation. LALMs show a similar sensitivity: enhanced datasets induce stronger class imbalance and prediction shifts than unprocessed data. These results suggest that speech preprocessing and dataset curation can substantially influence downstream AD detection behavior, indicating that ``cleaner'' speech datasets are not necessarily more reliable for real-world AD detection.

Claims about the robustness and fairness of deepfake speech detectors are only as credible as the datasets used to train and evaluate those systems. We present a dataset-level audit of the deepfake speech landscape. We compile and analyze 39 deepfake speech datasets, examining key attributes including accessibility, documentation, demographic and language coverage, dataset scale, and the underlying bona fide speech sources. Our audit reveals two important takeaways. Firstly, fairness assessment is largely infeasible because most datasets lack demographic metadata, and only a few contain gender or language labels. This prevents any meaningful subgroup analysis and leaves other demographic attributes unaddressed. Secondly, we identify substantial overlap in underlying bona fide source corpora across datasets, which can undermine cross-dataset evaluation and lead to overstated generalization claims.

Speech offers a uniquely informative window into health by simultaneously engaging neurological, motor, respiratory, and vocal systems. Current clinical speech AI methods have largely progressed through isolated condition-specific studies, making results difficult to compare and generalization difficult to assess. We introduce SpeechDx, a large-scale benchmark for clinical speech AI spanning 12 datasets and 27 tasks across diverse health conditions. To enable evaluation across shared clinical mechanisms, SpeechDx structures tasks by the stage of speech production they disrupt: conceptualization, formulation, and articulation. The benchmark tests generalization by including tasks with limited labeled data and evaluating the same health condition across multiple datasets, distinguishing clinically meaningful patterns from dataset artefacts. We systematically evaluate 12 state-of-the-art audio encoders across all tasks and under zero-shot cross-condition transfer. Results show that large-scale speech models represent the strongest overall baselines, domain-specific models improve performance only on closely matched tasks, and no current representation generalizes reliably across the clinical speech landscape. SpeechDx establishes a shared evaluation framework for tracking progress toward general-purpose clinical speech representations