Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Exploring the Inquiry-Diagnosis Relationship with Advanced Patient Simulators

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.09484 v2 pith:EFT7O4SM submitted 2025-01-16 cs.CL

Exploring the Inquiry-Diagnosis Relationship with Advanced Patient Simulators

classification cs.CL
keywords inquirypatientmodelsdiagnosisdiagnosticrelationshipsimulatordialogue
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recently, large language models have shown great potential to transform online medical consultation. Despite this, most research targets improving diagnostic accuracy with ample information, often overlooking the inquiry phase. Some studies try to evaluate or refine doctor models by using prompt-engineered patient agents. However, prompt engineering alone falls short in accurately simulating real patients. We need to explore new paradigms for patient simulation. Furthermore, the relationship between inquiry and diagnosis remains unexplored. This paper extracts dialogue strategies from real doctor-patient conversations to guide the training of a patient simulator. Our simulator shows higher anthropomorphism and lower hallucination rates, using dynamic dialogue strategies. This innovation offers a more accurate evaluation of diagnostic models and generates realistic synthetic data. We conduct extensive experiments on the relationship between inquiry and diagnosis, showing they adhere to Liebig's law: poor inquiry limits diagnosis effectiveness, regardless of diagnostic skill, and vice versa. The experiments also reveal substantial differences in inquiry performance among models. To delve into this phenomenon, the inquiry process is categorized into four distinct types. Analyzing the distribution of inquiries across these types helps explain the performance differences. The weights of our patient simulator are available https://github.com/PatientSimulator/PatientSimulator.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. METRO: Towards Strategy Induction from Expert Dialogue Transcripts for Non-collaborative Dialogues

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    METRO induces both short-term actions and long-term planning from expert transcripts into a Strategy Forest, outperforming prior methods by 9-10% on two non-collaborative dialogue benchmarks.

  2. Baichuan-M2: Scaling Medical Capability with Large Verifier System

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    Baichuan-M2, a 32B medical LLM trained with a patient simulator and a clinical rubric generator as RL verifiers, reports state-of-the-art HealthBench scores (60.1 overall, 34.7 hard), ahead of all open-source models.