REVIEW 1 cited by
D4: a Chinese Dialogue Dataset for Depression-Diagnosis-Oriented Chat
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
D4: a Chinese Dialogue Dataset for Depression-Diagnosis-Oriented Chat
read the original abstract
In a depression-diagnosis-directed clinical session, doctors initiate a conversation with ample emotional support that guides the patients to expose their symptoms based on clinical diagnosis criteria. Such a dialogue system is distinguished from existing single-purpose human-machine dialog systems, as it combines task-oriented and chit-chats with uniqueness in dialogue topics and procedures. However, due to the social stigma associated with mental illness, the dialogue data related to depression consultation and diagnosis are rarely disclosed. Based on clinical depression diagnostic criteria ICD-11 and DSM-5, we designed a 3-phase procedure to construct D$^4$: a Chinese Dialogue Dataset for Depression-Diagnosis-Oriented Chat, which simulates the dialogue between doctors and patients during the diagnosis of depression, including diagnosis results and symptom summary given by professional psychiatrists for each conversation. Upon the newly-constructed dataset, four tasks mirroring the depression diagnosis process are established: response generation, topic prediction, dialog summary, and severity classification of depressive episode and suicide risk. Multi-scale evaluation results demonstrate that a more empathy-driven and diagnostic-accurate consultation dialogue system trained on our dataset can be achieved compared to rule-based bots.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
MMHBench: A Multi-Perspective Benchmark for Mental Health Understanding in Long-Form Videos
MMHBench, a 268-video, 2,184-question benchmark, shows multimodal LLMs are much worse at first-person psychological perspective-taking than at third-person observation.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.