Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

DECT: Harnessing LLM-assisted Fine-Grained Linguistic Knowledge and Label-Switched and Label-Preserved Data Generation for Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read An LLM-assisted pipeline that distills cognitive-linguistic atoms and generates label-switched synthetic transcripts lifts Alzheimer's detection accuracy on ADReSSo to 90.48%, an 11% improvement over the BioBERT baseline.

desk verdict The DECT pipeline is a coherent and interesting integration of LLM extraction with synthetic data generation, but the total absence of a described evaluation split makes the headline 90.48% accuracy untrustworthy as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04394 v2 pith:K22IWZWT submitted 2025-02-06 cs.CL cs.AI

Tingyu Mo , Jacqueline C. K. Lam , Victor O.K. Li , Lawrence Y. L. Cheung This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords Alzheimer'sdiseasedetectionlargelanguagemodelscognitive-linguisticatomslinguisticmarkerslabel-switchedlabel-preserveddatagenerationADReSSospeechtranscriptsDementiaBank
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

DECT claims that a pipeline in which a frozen large language model distills noisy patient-interviewer transcripts into concise cognitive-linguistic atoms, extracts fine-grained linguistic markers, and synthesizes label-switched and label-preserved speech transcripts can lift speech-based Alzheimer's disease detection well beyond standard fine-tuned text encoders. On the 166-sample ADReSSo benchmark, DECT with GPT-4o as the LLM and BioBERT as the encoder reports 90.48% accuracy and 88.32% F1, an 11% accuracy gain over the 80.95% BioBERT baseline, with gains growing as the underlying LLM improves from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4 to GPT-4o. If the results hold, they show that cheap textual transcripts plus LLM-assisted distillation and augmentation can substitute for larger labeled AD speech datasets, and that a relatively small encoder can reach high detection accuracy without invasive biomarkers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Cognitive-Linguistic (CL) atom, a concise standalone statement of one piece of patient information distilled from a noisy transcript, inspired by 'factual atoms' in natural-language inference; together with LLM-extracted linguistic markers, these form an Atom-Marker Representation (AMR) via concatenation and a dense GeLU fusion. On top of that, label-switched and label-preserved (LSLP) generation takes distilled atoms from one class, injects randomly selected linguistic markers of the other class, and asks the LLM to re-synthesize a transcript, creating near-boundary and out-of-distribution training samples. A frozen LLM (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, or GPT-4o) produces all three ingredients; only a text encoder (BioBERT) and an MLP head are trained, by minimizing a classification loss on AMR plus a classification loss on synthetic-transcript embeddings.

What would settle it

Run DECT with a strict subject-disjoint protocol where GPT-4o's prompts contain only training-subject transcripts, then measure test accuracy; if it drops to the 80.95% BioBERT baseline or below, the reported 11% gain comes from leakage rather than from CL-atom distillation and LSLP generation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, on its own terms, is that combining LLM-extracted CL atoms with LLM-identified linguistic markers and LLM-generated LSLP synthetic transcripts produces an Atom-Marker Representation that separates AD from normal-control speech better than raw transcript embeddings. In the ablation, CL atoms alone raise accuracy from 80.95% to 82.38%, adding LSLP data raises it to 89.29%, and the full combination reaches 90.48% accuracy and 88.32% F1; marker-only inputs actually hurt, and data generation without atoms hurts, so the gain comes from the interaction of distilled semantic content and controlled label-switched augmentation. DECT's authors interpret this as evidence that structured cognitive-linguistic knowledge and boundary-near synthetic samples make a small BioBERT encoder competitive with or better than much larger models on ADReSSo.

Load-bearing premise

The 90.48% accuracy number depends on the 166 ADReSSo samples being split into independent training and test sets with the LLM never seeing any test subject's transcript when extracting markers, distilling atoms, or generating synthetic data; the paper does not state the split or any such exclusion rule.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On ADReSSo, the full DECT pipeline reaches 90.48% accuracy and 88.32% F1, an 11% improvement over the BioBERT baseline, with the best result using GPT-4o.
  • AMR inputs consistently outperform raw transcripts, so denoting speech as distilled atoms plus linguistic markers is itself a representational improvement.
  • LSLP generation beats simple transcript mimicry, and the gap is largest for raw-transcript inputs, so label-switched augmentation appears to push the decision boundary into useful regions.
  • The benefit scales with LLM quality: GPT-4o > GPT-4 > GPT-3.5 across input and generation settings, implying downstream gains track the LLM's linguistic ability.
  • The components are synergistic: data generation alone lowers accuracy to 76.66%, but combined with CL atoms it rises to 89.29%, and the full set reaches 90.48%.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A strict test would hold out whole subjects from all LLM prompts, not just from encoder training; the paper's omission of the split means this is the first thing to check before trusting the 90.48% number.
  • The same LSLP recipe could be tried on other DementiaBank partitions or on other languages with AD transcripts; if CL atoms transfer across datasets, the method would not need per-dataset retraining of the LLM.
  • Because markers alone hurt accuracy while atoms help, the extracted marker vocabulary may need pruning or weighting; a cheap extension would be to let the model learn per-marker weights rather than fusing all markers equally.
  • If the synthetic transcripts are this effective, one could test whether they also help human raters or other modalities; the paper does not report human evaluation of the generated speech samples.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DECT, an LLM-assisted pipeline for Alzheimer's disease detection from spontaneous speech transcripts. It uses frozen LLMs to extract linguistic markers and cognitive-linguistic atoms from patient-interviewer dialogues, generates label-switched and label-preserved synthetic transcripts from those extracted units, and fine-tunes a BERT-based encoder on a fused atom-marker representation plus the synthetic data. On a 166-sample ADReSSo subset, the authors report 90.48% accuracy and 88.32% F1 with GPT-4o, an 11-point improvement over a BioBERT baseline, supported by ablations and comparisons with multiple LLM and BERT baselines.

Significance. If the headline result is reproducible under a proper evaluation protocol, DECT would be a meaningful contribution to speech-based AD detection: it offers a practical way to combine LLM linguistic knowledge with data augmentation to mitigate data scarcity, and the systematic ablations help identify which components matter. The paper also provides a useful comparison of several LLMs and BERT variants on this task. However, the current manuscript does not establish the central empirical claim because the evaluation protocol is unspecified: no train/test split, no held-out validation for hyperparameter selection, and no exclusion rule for synthetic data generation are described.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experiments, ADReSSo Dataset] The paper never specifies how the 166 samples (86 AD, 80 NC) are partitioned into training and test sets. The Experiments section states only that 'ADReSSo dataset is used for model training,' and Algorithm 1 iterates over all dialogues D, using each d_i to extract atoms and markers and to generate synthetic transcripts S_i^syn that are included in the training loss. If the reported 90.48% accuracy in Table 1 is obtained without a held-out split, or if synthetic data derived from test-subject transcripts is used in training, the result is leakage-inflated and not comparable to the baselines. The authors must report the split ratio, the number of folds, and an explicit rule that no test-subject transcript contributes to atom/marker extraction, synthetic generation, or few-shot prompt examples.
  2. [Experimental Settings] The sentence 'After performing experiments with alternative parameter values, we train the model...' indicates that hyperparameters were selected using the same data on which the final numbers are reported, with no separate validation set described. Combined with the missing test split, the reported mean and standard deviation over five seeds quantify only seed variation under an unspecified protocol. Please describe the model selection procedure (e.g., nested cross-validation) and report results on a predefined test set.
  3. [Generating Label-Switched and Label-Preserved Data] The LSLP synthetic transcripts are generated by injecting LLM-extracted AD/NC markers into LLM-distilled atoms, and the synthetic labels are assigned by construction. This means the augmented training signal recirculates the LLM's own linguistic judgments about AD speech. If the final model is evaluated only on the same data distribution and no external test set is used, the reported improvement may reflect the model learning to detect the LLM's stereotypes rather than clinically valid markers. A concrete test would be to evaluate DECT on an external DementiaBank subset (e.g., the ADReSS test partition or a held-out Pitt corpus) whose transcripts are excluded from all LLM extraction and generation steps.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Experimental Settings] The phrase 'permanence metrics' should be 'performance metrics'.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion] The '11% improvement' should clarify whether it refers to absolute percentage points (90.48% vs. 80.95%) or relative improvement; the current wording is ambiguous.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is dense and the font is very small; the distinction between trainable and untrainable data flows is hard to follow and should be redrawn for legibility.
  4. [Table 2] The checkmark table uses '√' without a legend; please add a note explaining that '√' indicates the component is enabled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DECT's derivation chain is self-contained; the reported evaluation protocol is underspecified (a correctness risk, not circularity).

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation is not circular by the paper's own equations. DECT extracts CL atoms and linguistic markers by prompting a frozen LLM on transcripts, builds an AMR embedding, and generates LSLP synthetic transcripts whose labels are set by the injection of AD or non-AD markers (label-switched/preserved), not by the source transcript's label. The synthetic data enters a supervised classification loss (Lsyn) alongside the AMR classification loss (LCLS) in Algorithm 1; this is a standard feature-extraction-plus-augmentation pipeline, and no equation defines the target prediction in terms of the LLM's extracted markers or the generated data. The CL-atom concept is explicitly adapted from Stacey et al. (2023), not from the authors' prior work, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citations. The only self-citation (Li et al. 2021) supports a background need-for-accessible-diagnostics claim and is not load-bearing. The serious weakness is experimental: the paper never states a train/test split or an exclusion rule for synthetic-data generation, and it says 'The ADReSSo dataset is used for model training' while Algorithm 1 loops over all dialogues D. If evaluation samples are among D, the 90.48% figure would be in-sample and not a prediction; that is a validity/reproducibility risk, but the manuscript's text does not exhibit the specific reduction required to call it circularity. The t-SNE visualizations and ablation results likewise do not rename a known result; they are post-hoc analyses of the proposed representations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main contribution rests on process assumptions rather than on fitted physical parameters. The trainable quantities are standard neural-network weights and a handful of hyperparameters. The load-bearing burden is the validity of LLM-extracted atoms and markers, the validity of synthetically generated labels, and the unstated split independence. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • learning_rate = 15e-6
    Reported in Experimental Settings; authors state they arrived at these values after experiments with alternative parameter values.
  • weight_decay = 0.05
    Reported in Experimental Settings and tuned on the same dataset.
  • training_epochs = 50
    Reported in Experimental Settings.
  • batch_size = 8
    Reported in Experimental Settings.
  • llm_sampling_temperature = 1
    Fixed temperature for GPT API calls; introduces stochasticity but is not tuned.
  • number_of_generated_samples_per_transcript = Not specified in the paper.
    The size of the augmented training set is not stated, yet it directly affects the LSLP contribution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM few-shot extraction of CL atoms and linguistic markers is faithful to the transcript and relevant to AD diagnosis.
    Used in the sections on extracting fine-grained linguistic knowledge and identifying cognitive-linguistic atoms; the entire representation depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Label-switched and label-preserved synthetic transcripts, generated by injecting markers into distilled atoms, are valid labeled training samples that generalize to real AD speech.
    Introduced in the LSLP data generation section; this is a strong, paper-specific assumption about synthetic label validity.
  • domain assumption Whisper automatic transcription provides text of sufficient quality for AD detection.
    Stated in Experimental Settings; all downstream processing uses these ASR transcripts.
  • domain assumption The 166-sample subset is partitioned so that training, including synthetic generation, is independent of evaluation.
    Needed for any valid accuracy claim but never explicitly stated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DECT: Harnessing LLM-assisted Fine-Grained Linguistic Knowledge and Label-Switched and Label-Preserved Data Generation for Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K22IWZWT

@misc{pith2026250204394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DECT: Harnessing LLM-assisted Fine-Grained Linguistic Knowledge and Label-Switched and Label-Preserved Data Generation for Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K22IWZWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04394}
}
read the original abstract

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is an irreversible neurodegenerative disease affecting 50 million people worldwide. Low-cost, accurate identification of key markers of AD is crucial for timely diagnosis and intervention. Language impairment is one of the earliest signs of cognitive decline, which can be used to discriminate AD patients from normal control individuals. Patient-interviewer dialogues may be used to detect such impairments, but they are often mixed with ambiguous, noisy, and irrelevant information, making the AD detection task difficult. Moreover, the limited availability of AD speech samples and variability in their speech styles pose significant challenges in developing robust speech-based AD detection models. To address these challenges, we propose DECT, a novel speech-based domain-specific approach leveraging large language models (LLMs) for fine-grained linguistic analysis and label-switched label-preserved data generation. Our study presents four novelties: We harness the summarizing capabilities of LLMs to identify and distill key Cognitive-Linguistic information from noisy speech transcripts, effectively filtering irrelevant information. We leverage the inherent linguistic knowledge of LLMs to extract linguistic markers from unstructured and heterogeneous audio transcripts. We exploit the compositional ability of LLMs to generate AD speech transcripts consisting of diverse linguistic patterns to overcome the speech data scarcity challenge and enhance the robustness of AD detection models. We use the augmented AD textual speech transcript dataset and a more fine-grained representation of AD textual speech transcript data to fine-tune the AD detection model. The results have shown that DECT demonstrates superior model performance with an 11% improvement in AD detection accuracy on the datasets from DementiaBank compared to the baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04394 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DECT: An LLM-assisted framework that leverages the inherent linguistic knowledge of LLMs to process spontaneous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of Newly Generated AD and NC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Embedding visualization: Comparison of AM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Reverse-Speech-Finder: A Neural Network Backtracking Architecture for Generating Alzheimer's Disease Speech Samples and Improving Diagnosis Performance

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    RSF uses causal tracing and backtracking in a fine-tuned LLM to identify 'most probable' AD speech markers and generates synthetic transcripts that improve AD classification by about 3.5% accuracy.

  2. Large-Scale AI and Foundation Models for Neuroscience: A Comprehensive Review

    cs.AI 2025-10 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    This paper is a survey: it organizes existing foundation-model work in neuroscience into five application domains and lists public datasets, without presenting new experiments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    L.; Almeida, D.; Altenschmidt, J.; Altman, S.; Anadkat, S.; et al

    Achiam, J.; Adler, S.; Agarwal, S.; Ahmad, L.; Akkaya, I.; Aleman, F. L.; Almeida, D.; Altenschmidt, J.; Altman, S.; Anadkat, S.; et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Bai, J.; Bai, S.; Chu, Y.; Cui, Z.; Dang, K.; Deng, X.; Fan, Y.; Ge, W.; Han, Y.; Huang, F.; et al. 2023. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    T.; Boiler, F.; Lopez, O

    Becker, J. T.; Boiler, F.; Lopez, O. L.; Saxton, J.; and McGonigle, K. L. 1994. The natural history of Alzheimer's disease: description of study cohort and accuracy of diagnosis. Archives of neurology, 51(6): 585--594

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    Blennow, K.; and Zetterberg, H. 2018. Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: current status and prospects for the future. Journal of internal medicine, 284(6): 643--663

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Eyigoz, E.; Mathur, S.; Santamaria, M.; Cecchi, G.; and Naylor, M. 2020. Linguistic markers predict onset of Alzheimer's disease. EClinicalMedicine, 28

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    C.; Meltzer, J

    Fraser, K. C.; Meltzer, J. A.; and Rudzicz, F. 2016. Linguistic features identify Alzheimer’s disease in narrative speech. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 49(2): 407--422

    work page 2016

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Glosser, G.; and Deser, T. 1991. Patterns of discourse production among neurological patients with fluent language disorders. Brain and language, 40(1): 67--88

    1991

  2. [10]

    M.; Saylor, A

    Lanzi, A. M.; Saylor, A. K.; Fromm, D.; Liu, H.; MacWhinney, B.; and Cohen, M. L. 2023. DementiaBank: Theoretical rationale, protocol, and illustrative analyses. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 32(2): 426--438

    2023

  3. [11]

    R.; Frost, S

    Laske, C.; Sohrabi, H. R.; Frost, S. M.; L \'o pez-de Ipi \ n a, K.; Garrard, P.; Buscema, M.; Dauwels, J.; Soekadar, S. R.; Mueller, S.; Linnemann, C.; et al. 2015. Innovative diagnostic tools for early detection of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 11(5): 561--578

    2015

  4. [12]

    H.; and Kang, J

    Lee, J.; Yoon, W.; Kim, S.; Kim, D.; Kim, S.; So, C. H.; and Kang, J. 2020. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4): 1234--1240

    2020

  5. [13]

    O.; Lam, J

    Li, V. O.; Lam, J. C.; Han, Y.; Cheung, L. Y.; Downey, J.; Kaistha, T.; and Gozes, I. 2021. Designing a protocol adopting an artificial intelligence (AI)--driven approach for early diagnosis of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience, 71(7): 1329--1337

    2021

  6. [14]

    Luz, S.; Haider, F.; de la Fuente, S.; Fromm, D.; and MacWhinney, B. 2021 a . Detecting cognitive decline using speech only: The adresso challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.09356

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Luz, S.; Haider, F.; de la Fuente Garcia, S.; Fromm, D.; and MacWhinney, B. 2021 b . Alzheimer's dementia recognition through spontaneous speech

    2021

  8. [16]

    J.; Scheltens, P.; and Hodges, J

    Nestor, P. J.; Scheltens, P.; and Hodges, J. R. 2004. Advances in the early detection of Alzheimer's disease. Nature medicine, 10(Suppl 7): S34--S41

    2004

  9. [17]

    Ouyang, L.; Wu, J.; Jiang, X.; Almeida, D.; Wainwright, C.; Mishkin, P.; Zhang, C.; Agarwal, S.; Slama, K.; Ray, A.; et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 27730--27744

    2022

  10. [18]

    Peng, L.; Zhang, Y.; and Shang, J. 2023. Generating efficient training data via llm-based attribute manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07099

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    W.; Xu, T.; Brockman, G.; McLeavey, C.; and Sutskever, I

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Xu, T.; Brockman, G.; McLeavey, C.; and Sutskever, I. 2022. Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision

    2022

  12. [20]

    A.; Patterson, K.; Tomek, M.; and Nestor, P

    Sajjadi, S. A.; Patterson, K.; Tomek, M.; and Nestor, P. J. 2012. Abnormalities of connected speech in semantic dementia vs Alzheimer's disease. Aphasiology, 26(6): 847--866

    2012

  13. [21]

    Stacey, J.; Minervini, P.; Dubossarsky, H.; Camburu, O.-M.; and Rei, M. 2023. Logical reasoning for natural language inference using generated facts as atoms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13214

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Team, G.; Zeng, A.; Xu, B.; Wang, B.; Zhang, C.; Yin, D.; Rojas, D.; Feng, G.; Zhao, H.; Lai, H.; et al. 2024. ChatGLM: A Family of Large Language Models from GLM-130B to GLM-4 All Tools. arXiv e-prints, arXiv--2406

    2024

  15. [23]

    R.; and Wang, M

    Venugopalan, J.; Tong, L.; Hassanzadeh, H. R.; and Wang, M. D. 2021. Multimodal deep learning models for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease stage. Scientific reports, 11(1): 3254

    2021

  16. [24]

    Yang, K.; Ji, S.; Zhang, T.; Xie, Q.; Kuang, Z.; and Ananiadou, S. 2023. Towards interpretable mental health analysis with large language models. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    2023

  17. [25]

    Yang, Q.; Li, X.; Ding, X.; Xu, F.; and Ling, Z. 2022. Deep learning-based speech analysis for Alzheimer’s disease detection: a literature review. Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, 14(1): 186

    2022

  18. [26]

    Young, A.; Chen, B.; Li, C.; Huang, C.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, G.; Li, H.; Zhu, J.; Chen, J.; Chang, J.; et al. 2024 a . Yi: Open foundation models by 01. ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04652

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L.; Oxtoby, N

    Young, A. L.; Oxtoby, N. P.; Garbarino, S.; Fox, N. C.; Barkhof, F.; Schott, J. M.; and Alexander, D. C. 2024 b . Data-driven modelling of neurodegenerative disease progression: thinking outside the black box. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 25(2): 111--130

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.