Mentalic Net: Development of RAG-based Conversational AI and Evaluation Framework for Mental Health Support

Anandi Dutta; Jessica Saddington; Kazi Sifatul Islam; Shivani Mruthyunjaya

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Mentalic Net: Development of RAG-based Conversational AI and Evaluation Framework for Mental Health Support

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Retrieval-augmented TinyLlama chatbot for mental-health support achieves BERTScore 0.898 on a 500-sample researcher-written evaluation, and the authors argue this supports careful human-in-the-loop deployment.

desk verdict The headline BERTScore is not supported by the reported evaluation, and the fine-tuning loss contradicts the method description; still, the paper is a transparent work-in-progress with a concrete workflow idea. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04456 v1 pith:BY4CLR6A submitted 2025-08-27 cs.CL

Anandi Dutta , Shivani Mruthyunjaya , Jessica Saddington , Kazi Sifatul Islam This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords mentalhealthchatbotretrieval-augmentedgenerationBERTScoreTinyLlamaconversationalAIresponsiblebiasevaluationhuman-in-the-loop

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

The paper reports the development of Mentalic Net, a proof-of-concept chatbot for mental-health support built by combining retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), prompt engineering, and fine-tuning of TinyLlama-1.1B-Chat. The authors claim the system achieves a BERTScore of 0.898 on 500 evaluation samples whose 'standard/ideal responses' were written by the researchers themselves, with RAG retrieval recall of 0.86 and precision of 0.51. They position the chatbot as a first-version augmentative tool, not a diagnostic or crisis system, and propose integrating it into a therapist's workflow through sentiment dashboards built from conversation logs. The contribution they claim is less a single algorithm than an evaluation framework covering semantic accuracy, perplexity, retrieval efficiency, response time, load, privacy, prompt-injection, and bias checks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the RAG pipeline. A hybrid retriever (BM25 plus FAISS dense-vector search with sentence embeddings) indexes a JSONL knowledge base assembled from five sources: Empathetic Dialogues, Counsel Chat, psychology-10k, MentalChat16K, and a self-curated set of public mental-health information. For each user query, the top-6 chunks are selected by cosine similarity and passed as context to TinyLlama-1.1B-Chat-v1.0-GGUF, whose generation is steered by a fixed prompt requiring empathy, validation, 2–4 sentence responses, and no fabricated sources. The system's claimed performance is carried by the interaction of these pieces: retrieval supplies domain-grounded content, the

What would settle it

Run the same 500 user prompts through the same TinyLlama setup with the retriever disabled and compare BERTScore; if it does not drop well below 0.898, RAG is not what is producing the reported quality. Independently, have clinical annotators re-score the 500 ideal responses; if their judgments diverge from the authors' references, the benchmark itself is not reproducible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a compact, RAG-grounded language model can produce mental-health support responses that are semantically very close to human-written ideal responses: the measured BERTScore is 0.898, which the authors state surpasses the categorized BERTScore F1 values of the postpartum-mood chatbot in [23] and the DialogGPT and GPT-2 scores in [22]. The retrieval component, a hybrid BM25 and dense-vector search over five curated datasets, is credited with keeping answers grounded and reducing hallucination; its recall of 0.86 is highlighted as evidence that needed context is usually surfaced. Secondary results reported as satisfactory include average response time of 13.8 seconds f

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation rests on 500 'standard/ideal responses' authored by the researchers themselves; if that self-built gold standard is unrepresentative or biased, the BERTScore and the comparisons built on it lose their meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the BERTScore of 0.898 holds up, a 1.1-billion-parameter model with RAG can match the semantic quality of much larger systems on mental-health dialogue, making local or low-cost deployment feasible.
The reported recall of 0.86 supports the paper's claim that RAG reduces omission of key content, which is the mechanism by which the authors argue hallucination and risky advice are controlled.
The proposed therapist-facing dashboards would let one professional monitor mood trends across many users between sessions, directly addressing shortage-of-professionals constraints.
The five-part evaluation template — semantic accuracy, perplexity, retrieval efficiency, security/privacy, and bias — gives later builders a checklist for claiming a conversational agent is ready for human-in-the-loop use.
The authors' planned next phase, with clinician and focus-group evaluation, is the step that would turn the reported technical metrics into evidence about real-world safety and trust.

Reading between the lines

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

The headline score is best read as an internal signal: the 500 standard/ideal responses were authored in-house with no inter-annotator agreement or public release, so an independent reference set is needed before comparing 0.898 with other chatbots' scores.
The text says fine-tuning was done through RAG and parameter changes, yet the metrics table reports fine-tuning loss values (3.68 training, 3.40 validation); the paper does not reconcile these, so the numbers should be clarified or removed before reuse.
A direct test of RAG's contribution would run the same 500 prompts through the same TinyLlama model with retrieval disabled; if BERTScore is unchanged or higher, the retrieval layer is not the source of the reported quality.
The high-perplexity prompts identified by the authors — love language, personality change, physical pain — cluster around identity, relationships, and somatic comorbidity, suggesting concrete gaps in the knowledge base that targeted additions could close.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, the punchline is that the central evaluation claim doesn't survive contact with the paper. The BERTScore of 0.898 is computed against the authors' own 500-response gold standard, which is not released and has no inter-annotator agreement, so the number is uninterpretable. The comparisons to [22] and [23] are not apples-to-apples because they use different reference sets. And Section III.C says fine-tuning was done 'through RAG and the alteration of the configuration parameters,' yet Table 1 reports a training loss of 3.68 and validation loss of 3.40 with no training run described. That is an internal contradiction the authors need to resolve.

What is genuinely here: the paper is a transparent proof-of-concept. The authors clearly describe a standard RAG pipeline with TinyLlama, pull together several public datasets, and propose a therapist-workflow dashboard with sentiment-based calendar and radar charts. That workflow idea is concrete and could be useful to others working on mental health chatbots. The breadth of evaluation attempts—perplexity, RAG precision/recall, load testing, PII leakage, prompt injection, bias—is commendable, even though the results are mostly asserted as 'satisfactory' without data.

The soft spots are load-bearing. The gold standard is self-created and not released, so the headline BERTScore is not reproducible. The RAG precision (0.51) and recall (0.86) come from manually selected questions, and the paper hand-waves the low precision by saying a visual review showed relevance. The bias and privacy tests are summarized as satisfactory with no numbers, no test prompts, no method. The fine-tuning contradiction is a real internal inconsistency that makes the training claims unauditable. If the gold standard is biased or unrepresentative, the entire quantitative evaluation collapses.

Who is this for? Someone building a mental health chatbot might skim it for the workflow dashboard and the list of public datasets. But as a research paper, it is a work-in-progress report, not a validated system. I would not send this to peer review in its current form. The evaluation needs to be redone with a public, fixed test set, same-set baselines, and a clear description of any actual fine-tuning. If the authors fix those issues, a revised version could be a reasonable workshop paper.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Mentalic Net, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) based mental health support chatbot built on TinyLlama-1.1B-Chat-v1.0-GGUF, combined with prompt engineering and configuration-parameter tuning. The knowledge base is constructed from several public datasets (Empathetic Dialogues, Counsel Chat, psychology-10k, MentalChat16K) plus self-curated mental-health texts from NIMH, CDC, MedlinePlus, and SAMHSA. The authors report an evaluation on 500 self-created question-response triples, claiming a BERTScore of 0.898, a perplexity of about 25, RAG recall/precision of 0.86/0.51, and 'satisfactory' results for load testing, PII leakage detection, prompt injection testing, and bias testing with human evaluation. They also propose a therapist-workflow integration with synthetic longitudinal mood visualizations.

Significance. If the reported results were supported by a rigorous, reproducible evaluation, this would be a useful lightweight proof-of-concept for RAG-based mental-health support in resource-constrained settings. The paper makes a genuine effort to combine public counseling datasets, grounding via RAG, and a proposed therapist-facing dashboard. However, the evaluation is currently not sufficient to support the central claims: the BERTScore is computed against a non-public, self-authored reference set; no same-set baselines are given; the RAG retrieval metrics lack a defined ground truth; and the bias/privacy/security results are qualitative assertions. The contribution at this stage is a system description with an illustrative evaluation framework, not a validated comparative result.

major comments (5)

[Section IV] The headline claim (BERTScore 0.898, 'surpassing the performance of all the categorized BERTScore F1 presented in [23]' and outperforming DialogGPT/GPT-2 from [22]) rests on 500 'Standard/Ideal Responses' authored by the researchers themselves, with no inter-annotator agreement, no public release, and no same-set baseline. BERTScore is reference-dependent; a score of 0.898 against one reference set is not comparable to scores computed on different reference sets in [21]-[23]. The authors must either provide same-set baselines (e.g., run DialogGPT, GPT-2, or the systems from [23] on the same 500 prompts) or retract the cross-paper superiority claims. Without this, the central evaluation claim is not established.
[Section III.C / Table 1] Section III.C states that fine-tuning 'was undertaken through RAG and the alteration of the configuration parameters,' with no description of a gradient-based training loop or weight updates. Table 1 reports 'Fine-Tuning Loss' values of 3.68 (training) and 3.40 (validation). The paper must clarify whether model weights were actually updated. If yes, the training procedure, data splits, epochs, and hyperparameters must be specified. If no, the reported loss values are unexplained and should be removed.
[Section IV, RAG Efficiency] The RAG precision/recall evaluation uses 'specific questions from the RAG' that are not enumerated or described, and the procedure for determining 'truly relevant documents' is not given. Without knowing how many questions were selected, how relevance was judged, and whether judgments were independent, the reported recall 0.86 and precision 0.51 are uninterpretable. The appeal to 'manual observation and thorough review' is not a quantitative substitute for a defined retrieval evaluation protocol.
[Section IV / Table 1] Bias testing, PII leakage detection, prompt injection testing, and load testing are each summarized only as 'Satisfactory.' The paper claims 'rigorous evaluation' covering trustworthiness, privacy, and bias, but provides no methodology, sample sizes, criteria, or quantitative outcomes for these tests. These claims need to be supported with concrete protocols and results, or they should be explicitly labeled as preliminary and not part of the central evaluation.
[Section III.A and IV] The fine-tuning data (psychology-10k, MentalChat16K, Counsel Chat, Empathetic Dialogues) is topically close to the 500 evaluation prompts. The paper does not state whether the 500 user questions were disjoint from the training sources, whether the ideal responses were written before inspecting model outputs, or whether the authors controlled for data contamination. This raises the possibility that the reported BERTScore reflects memorization or in-distribution generation rather than genuine generalization, and needs to be addressed directly.

minor comments (4)

[Section IV] The manuscript inconsistently uses 'BERT Score' and 'BERTScore'; the conclusion refers to a 'RAG score is 0.51,' which conflates precision with an overall RAG score.
[Table 1] The Perplexity row is difficult to interpret: it says the first column is the perplexity score and the second is the number of user inputs, but the actual distribution is only shown in Fig. 4. Clarify the table entry or refer directly to the figure.
[References] Reference [21] has no venue information, and [22] appears to be a workshop paper with an unusual page-number format. Please format all references consistently, and ensure the numbered citations appear in order of first use.
[Section IV] The list of high-perplexity questions (e.g., 'What is my love language?') is presented without interpretation or analysis. Either explain what these examples imply or remove them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the evaluation weaknesses are external-validity and reporting concerns, not derivation-by-definition.

full rationale

The central claim is an empirical BERTScore (0.898) computed against a 500-sample set of 'Standard/Ideal Responses' authored by the researchers. While this reference set is non-public and comparisons to [21], [22], and [23] use different evaluation sets, this threatens external validity and comparability, not circularity: BERTScore is defined as semantic similarity to a reference, and using human-written references as ground truth is the standard meaning of the metric unless the model was fitted to those exact references or the references were derived from the model's outputs. The paper's parameter tuning (temperature, top_p, repetition_penalty) is described as iterative manual adjustment, not optimization against the reported BERTScore, so no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern is present. The RAG precision/recall values (0.51/0.86) lack a precisely specified ground-truth relevance set, so no construction-equivalence can be exhibited from the text. The contradiction between Section III.C (fine-tuning 'through RAG and the alteration of the configuration parameters') and Table 1's 'Fine-Tuning Loss' values is a reporting inconsistency, not a circular step where an output equals an input by construction. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled via citation appears. Therefore, under the requirement to exhibit a specific reduction, no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The headline evaluation relies on a self-constructed gold standard, manual parameter tuning, and underreported safety checks. The free parameters are the manually tuned hyperparameters; the axioms include standard similarity metrics and domain assumptions about dataset suitability; no new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

top_k (retrieval) = 6
Chosen by optimization; retrieves top 6 documents by cosine similarity.
chunk_size = 600
CharacterTextSplitter uses 600 characters with no overlap.
min_doc_length = 50
Documents shorter than 50 characters are filtered from the knowledge base.
temperature = 0.65
Tuned from 0.7 to 0.65 for more predictability.
top_p = 0.3
Tuned down from 0.9 to focus outputs on the provided format.
repetition_penalty = 1.1
Lowered from 1.3 to allow elaboration.
max_new_tokens = 500
Lowered from 600 for concise responses.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption RAG grounding reduces hallucination in LLMs
Invoked in Section III.B via citation [2]; treated as given without measuring hallucination rates in this system.
domain assumption The selected public datasets (Empathetic Dialogues, Counsel Chat, psychology-10k, MentalChat16K) are appropriate and ethically sourced for mental health fine-tuning
Section III.A lists these datasets; no discussion of biases, consent, or representativeness.
ad hoc to paper Human-authored 'Standard/Ideal Responses' are a valid gold standard for semantic accuracy
Section IV builds the evaluation on this premise with no inter-annotator agreement or external validation.
domain assumption Paraphrasing MentalChat16K transcripts with the Mistral model preserves privacy and clinical content
Section III.A: the dataset's paraphrasing step is cited as sufficient for privacy; no verification is provided.
standard math Standard definitions of BERTScore, perplexity, and cosine similarity
These metrics are used without derivation; they are standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mentalic Net: Development of RAG-based Conversational AI and Evaluation Framework for Mental Health Support." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BY4CLR6A

@misc{pith2026250904456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mentalic Net: Development of RAG-based Conversational AI and Evaluation Framework for Mental Health Support},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BY4CLR6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04456}
}

read the original abstract

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has unlocked boundless possibilities, along with significant challenges. In response, we developed a mental health support chatbot designed to augment professional healthcare, with a strong emphasis on safe and meaningful application. Our approach involved rigorous evaluation, covering accuracy, empathy, trustworthiness, privacy, and bias. We employed a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework, integrated prompt engineering, and fine-tuned a pre-trained model on novel datasets. The resulting system, Mentalic Net Conversational AI, achieved a BERT Score of 0.898, with other evaluation metrics falling within satisfactory ranges. We advocate for a human-in-the-loop approach and a long-term, responsible strategy in developing such transformative technologies, recognizing both their potential to change lives and the risks they may pose if not carefully managed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04456 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Flowchart of Mentalic Net Conversational AI Development [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Mentalic Net Interface: A Conversationl AI for mental health support and integration/augmentation to Therapist’s Workflow In addition to the other evaluations, bias and fairness checks were conducted to identify and mitigate any issues with chatbot’s responses stemming from any cultural/religious/gender/demographic context. Human evaluation was performed for bias and fairness testing with specific curated questions … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[22]

Development and Evaluation of Three Chatbots for Postpartum Mood and Anxiety Disorders

A. Srivastava, I. Pandey, M. S. Akhtar, and T. Chakraborty, "Response- act Guided Reinforced Dialogue Generation for Mental Health Counseling," Proc. of PBL , vol. 572195, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://cai.iiitd.ac.in/upload/pdf/pbl/572195.pdf. [Accessed: 22-Aug-2025]. [23]. X. Yao, M. Mikhelson, S. C. Watkins, E. Choi, E. Thomaz, and K. de Barbaro, ...

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[21]

Empathetic Response in Audio-Visual Conversations Using Emotion Preference Optimization and MambaCompressor

Y. Kim, S. J. Park, and Y. M. Ro, "Empathetic Response in Audio - Visual Conversations Using Emotion Preference Optimization and MambaCompressor," arXiv, vol. 2412.17572v1, Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/html/2412.17572v1. [Accessed: 22-Aug-2025]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

Exploring Barriers to Mental Health Care in the U.S.,

H. Modi, K. Orgera, and A. Grover, "Exploring Barriers to Mental Health Care in the U.S.," AAMC Research and Action Institute, Oct. 10,

work page
[2]

Integrating retrieval-augmented generation with large language models in nephrology: Advancing practical applications,

J. Miao, C. Thongprayoon, S. Suppadungsuk, O. A. Garcia Valencia, and W. Cheungpasitporn, “Integrating retrieval-augmented generation with large language models in nephrology: Advancing practical applications,” Medicina (Kaunas), vol. 60, no. 3, p. 445, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.3390/medicina60030445

doi:10.3390/medicina60030445 2024
[3]

Two-layer retrieval-augmented generation framework for low-resource medical question answering using Reddit data: Proof-of-concept study,

S. Das, Y. Ge, Y. Guo, S. Rajwal, J. Hairston, J. Powell, D. Walker, S. Peddireddy, S. Lakamana, S. Bozkurt, M. Reyna, R. Sameni, Y. Xiao, S. Kim, R. Chandler, N. Hernandez, D. Mowery, R. Wightman, J. Love, A. Spadaro, J. Perrone, and A. Sarker, “Two-layer retrieval-augmented generation framework for low-resource medical question answering using Reddit da...

work page doi:10.2196/66220 2025
[4]

llmind-chat,

unimib-whattadata, “llmind-chat,” GitHub repository, [Online]. Available: https://github.com/unimib-whattadata/llmind-chat. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

work page 2025
[5]

MentalRAG: Developing an agentic framework for therapeutic support systems,

F. R. E. Silva, P. A. Santos, and J. Dias, “MentalRAG: Developing an agentic framework for therapeutic support systems,” in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Inf. Commun. Technol. Ageing Well e-Health (ICT4AWE), 2025, pp. 46–57, doi: 10.5220/0013267400003938

work page doi:10.5220/0013267400003938 2025
[6]

Empathetic Dialogues (Facebook AI) 25k,

A. Jairath, “Empathetic Dialogues (Facebook AI) 25k,” Kaggle, [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/atharvjairath/empathetic-dialogues- facebook-ai. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

work page 2025

Show all 25 references

[7]

counsel-chat,

N. Bertagnolli, “counsel-chat,” GitHub repository, [Online]. Available: https://github.com/nbertagnolli/counsel-chat. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

2025
[8]

Health Topics,

National Institute of Mental Health, “Health Topics,” [Online]. Available: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

2025
[9]

Managing Stress,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Managing Stress,” Mental Health, Aug. 16, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/mental- health/living-with/index.html. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

2024
[10]

MedlinePlus,

National Library of Medicine, “MedlinePlus,” [Online]. Available: https://medlineplus.gov. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

2025
[11]

MentalHealth.gov,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “MentalHealth.gov,” [Online]. Available: https://www.mentalhealth.gov. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

2025
[12]

psychology-10k,

S. Höglund, “psychology-10k,” Hugging Face, [Online]. Available: https://huggingface.co/datasets/samhog/psychology-10k. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

2025
[13]

MentalChat16K: A Benchmark Dataset for Conversational Mental Health Assistance,

J. Xu, T. Wei, B. Hou, P. Orzechowski, S. Yang, R. Jin, R. Paulbeck, J. Wagenaar, G. Demiris, and L. Shen, “MentalChat16K: A Benchmark Dataset for Conversational Mental Health Assistance,” Hugging Face,
[14]

TinyLlama-1.1B-Chat-v1.0-GGUF,

TheBloke, “TinyLlama-1.1B-Chat-v1.0-GGUF,” Hugging Face, [Online]. Available: https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/TinyLlama-1.1B- Chat-v1.0-GGUF. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

2025
[15]

An overview of chatbot-based mobile mental health apps: Insights from app description and user reviews,

M. D. R. Haque and S. Rubya, “An overview of chatbot-based mobile mental health apps: Insights from app description and user reviews,” JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, vol. 11, p. e44838, May 2023, doi: 10.2196/44838

2023 doi
[16]

Artificial intelligence in positive mental health: A narrative review,

A. Thakkar, A. Gupta, and A. De Sousa, “Artificial intelligence in positive mental health: A narrative review,” Front. Digit. Health, vol. 6, p. 1280235, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1280235

2024
[17]

A Novel RAG-Based Pipeline Leveraging BioBERT for Personalized Healthcare Recommendations,

K. P. Suryavanshi, "A Novel RAG-Based Pipeline Leveraging BioBERT for Personalized Healthcare Recommendations," M.Tech. thesis, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India, Dec. 2024

2024
[18]

Providing self-led mental health support through an artificial intelligence– powered chat bot (Leora) to meet the demand of mental health care,

E. van der Schyff, B. Ridout, K. Amon, R. Forsyth, and A. Campbell, “Providing self-led mental health support through an artificial intelligence– powered chat bot (Leora) to meet the demand of mental health care,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 25, p. e46448, 2023, doi: 10.2196/46448

2023 doi
[19]

Harnessing large language models’ empathetic response generation capabilities for online mental health counselling support,

S. B. Loh and A. S. Raamkumar, “Harnessing large language models’ empathetic response generation capabilities for online mental health counselling support,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08017, Oct. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08017

2023 arXiv
[20]

Habit Coach: Customising RAG-based chatbots to support behavior change,

A. F. Mand Arabi, C. Koyuturk, M. O'Mahony, R. Calati, and D. Ognibene, “Habit Coach: Customising RAG-based chatbots to support behavior change,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19229, Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.19229

2024 arXiv
[24]

Enhancing mental health with artificial intelligence: Current trends and future prospects,

D. B. Olawade, O. Z. Wada, A. Odetayo, A. C. David-Olawade, F. Asaolu, and J. Eberhardt, “Enhancing mental health with artificial intelligence: Current trends and future prospects,” J. Med. Surg. Public Health, vol. 3, p. 100099, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100099

2024
[2022]

Available: https://www.aamcresearchinstitute.org/our- work/issue-brief/exploring-barriers-mental-health-care-us

[Online]. Available: https://www.aamcresearchinstitute.org/our- work/issue-brief/exploring-barriers-mental-health-care-us. [Accessed: May30,2025]

2025
[2024]

Available: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ShenLab/MentalChat16K

[Online]. Available: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ShenLab/MentalChat16K. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Development and Evaluation of Three Chatbots for Postpartum Mood and Anxiety Disorders

A. Srivastava, I. Pandey, M. S. Akhtar, and T. Chakraborty, "Response- act Guided Reinforced Dialogue Generation for Mental Health Counseling," Proc. of PBL , vol. 572195, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://cai.iiitd.ac.in/upload/pdf/pbl/572195.pdf. [Accessed: 22-Aug-2025]. [23]. X. Yao, M. Mikhelson, S. C. Watkins, E. Choi, E. Thomaz, and K. de Barbaro, ...

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [21]

Empathetic Response in Audio-Visual Conversations Using Emotion Preference Optimization and MambaCompressor

Y. Kim, S. J. Park, and Y. M. Ro, "Empathetic Response in Audio - Visual Conversations Using Emotion Preference Optimization and MambaCompressor," arXiv, vol. 2412.17572v1, Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/html/2412.17572v1. [Accessed: 22-Aug-2025]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[3] [1]

Exploring Barriers to Mental Health Care in the U.S.,

H. Modi, K. Orgera, and A. Grover, "Exploring Barriers to Mental Health Care in the U.S.," AAMC Research and Action Institute, Oct. 10,

work page

[4] [2]

Integrating retrieval-augmented generation with large language models in nephrology: Advancing practical applications,

J. Miao, C. Thongprayoon, S. Suppadungsuk, O. A. Garcia Valencia, and W. Cheungpasitporn, “Integrating retrieval-augmented generation with large language models in nephrology: Advancing practical applications,” Medicina (Kaunas), vol. 60, no. 3, p. 445, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.3390/medicina60030445

doi:10.3390/medicina60030445 2024

[5] [3]

Two-layer retrieval-augmented generation framework for low-resource medical question answering using Reddit data: Proof-of-concept study,

S. Das, Y. Ge, Y. Guo, S. Rajwal, J. Hairston, J. Powell, D. Walker, S. Peddireddy, S. Lakamana, S. Bozkurt, M. Reyna, R. Sameni, Y. Xiao, S. Kim, R. Chandler, N. Hernandez, D. Mowery, R. Wightman, J. Love, A. Spadaro, J. Perrone, and A. Sarker, “Two-layer retrieval-augmented generation framework for low-resource medical question answering using Reddit da...

work page doi:10.2196/66220 2025

[6] [4]

llmind-chat,

unimib-whattadata, “llmind-chat,” GitHub repository, [Online]. Available: https://github.com/unimib-whattadata/llmind-chat. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

work page 2025

[7] [5]

MentalRAG: Developing an agentic framework for therapeutic support systems,

F. R. E. Silva, P. A. Santos, and J. Dias, “MentalRAG: Developing an agentic framework for therapeutic support systems,” in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Inf. Commun. Technol. Ageing Well e-Health (ICT4AWE), 2025, pp. 46–57, doi: 10.5220/0013267400003938

work page doi:10.5220/0013267400003938 2025

[8] [6]

Empathetic Dialogues (Facebook AI) 25k,

A. Jairath, “Empathetic Dialogues (Facebook AI) 25k,” Kaggle, [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/atharvjairath/empathetic-dialogues- facebook-ai. [Accessed: May 30, 2025]

work page 2025