Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Design and Implementation of a Psychiatry Resident Training System Based on Large Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LLM-based psychiatry trainer reports 92.5% diagnostic accuracy and up to 35.6% skill gains

desk verdict A coherent system design is undercut by a circular, unsupported evaluation, so the training-gain numbers should not be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14530 v1 pith:RVV36LCB submitted 2025-01-24 cs.CY cs.HCq-bio.NC

Zhenguang Zhong , Jia Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.HCq-bio.NC
keywords psychiatristtraininglargelanguagemodelsmentalhealthclinicalskillsdiagnosticaccuracyknowledgegraphsexpertsystemsB/Sarchitecture
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 sets out to show that one platform can handle the whole training loop for psychiatrists: generating realistic patient cases, running simulated doctor-patient dialogues, suggesting examinations and prescriptions, and grading the trainee's performance. It reports a working system built on a large-language-model API, with six functional modules and a browser/server architecture, and backs it with a 60-doctor study claiming $99.95\%$ system stability, $96.5\%$ dialogue accuracy, $92.5\%$ diagnostic accuracy, and $92.3\%$ user satisfaction. The authors' central conclusion is that such an intelligent, standardized system can give residents far more case practice, objective feedback, and consistent evaluation than the current apprenticeship model, and can do so at lower cost. If these results hold, the platform offers a concrete route toward alleviating the global psychiatrist shortage and equalizing training quality across regions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the large-language-model API adapter layer: a prompt-and-pipeline wrapper that turns a general-purpose LLM into the system's case generator, simulated patient, diagnostic advisor, prescriber, and examiner. Case generation runs a state machine through framework, content-filling, logic-check, and style-adjustment stages; doctor-patient dialogue and diagnostic decision-making both use a three-stage pipeline of intent understanding, context integration, and response generation; and the expert evaluation engine fuses model scores across consultation, reasoning, accuracy, and medication dimensions to issue scores and feedback. Keeping this intelligence in a single API lets the six functional modules share one inference backend, which is what makes the claimed breadth and speed plausible.

What would settle it

An independent blinded test in which senior psychiatrists, not the system, set gold-standard diagnoses for a sample of the 500 test cases; if the system's agreement with that gold standard is far below $92.5\%$ (or a randomized control group improves as much without the system), the central effectiveness claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own account, the discovery is that an off-the-shelf large language model, wired through an adapter layer into a modular training platform, is enough to reproduce the essential clinical experiences of psychiatric residency. The system generates structured cases in a multi-stage prompt pipeline, conducts context-aware simulated consultations, recommends examinations and treatments with safety checks, and scores trainees on consultation skill, clinical thinking, diagnostic accuracy, and medication rationality. In the reported study, doctors using the system improved knowledge mastery by $35.6\%$, clinical thinking by $28.4\%$, and diagnostic skills by $23.7\%$, while the workflow that generated those gains ran at a diagnostic accuracy of $92.5\%$ over 500 test cases. The argument is that all six functions can live in one LLM-backed system and that the whole loop produces measurable, standardized training outcomes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported diagnostic accuracy and improvement percentages measure real clinical competence against an independent gold standard, rather than the system agreeing with itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A hospital could increase the cases a trainee sees each week from 3–5 to 30–50 without adding clinical staff.
  • Machine-generated scoring could replace part of the subjective supervision-based assessment that currently varies across hospitals.
  • The reported throughput of more than 1,000 concurrent users with sub-200 ms average response suggests the system could run as a shared nationwide service.
  • Training cost per doctor per year is claimed to fall from 150,000–200,000 RMB to 30,000–50,000 RMB, which would make standardized drills affordable for grassroots institutions.
  • The authors propose the same architecture as a reference model for training in other medical specialties that need case-based practice and objective evaluation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is an external-expert-blinded retest: because the same model generates the case, supplies the diagnosis, and scores the trainee, the headline numbers may partly reflect model self-consistency rather than independent clinical competence.
  • The adapter-style design means the underlying language model could be swapped without changing the training workflow, so the effectiveness claim is somewhat portable across model providers.
  • If the reported cost and throughput figures transfer, the main barrier to scale is likely trust rather than compute: formal adoption would require professional bodies to certify the generated cases, dialogues, and scores for use in resident assessment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes a B/S-architecture training system for psychiatry residents, with six functional modules (case generation, consultation dialogue, examination prescription, diagnostic decision-making, prescription generation, and expert evaluation) built on Vue.js, Node.js, and the DeepSeek API. It reports functional, performance, security, and user-experience results, including a 92.5% diagnostic accuracy and improvement percentages in knowledge mastery (35.6%), clinical thinking (28.4%), and diagnostic skills (23.7%). The central claim is that the system is a highly effective and deployable training tool, based on a clinical trial involving 60 psychiatrists at different levels.

Significance. If the reported effects were measured against an independent gold standard, the system would be a useful contribution to AI-assisted medical education. The paper gives a coherent architecture and a plausible modular decomposition, and it is transparent about using DeepSeek as the backbone for case generation, dialogue, and evaluation. However, the significance is not established because the evaluation section lacks the experimental design needed to support the central claim, and the reported numbers cannot be reconstructed from the described methods. The paper also provides no working code or demo, despite claiming open-source release.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §2.1.1, §4.1, §4.5] The evaluation population is inconsistent: the abstract and conclusion state a clinical trial involving 60 psychiatrists, §4.5 states 300 valid questionnaires, §2.1.1 describes a requirements survey of 300 doctors from 18 hospitals, and §4.1 says a one-month trial at three partner hospitals. These numbers are not reconciled, so the reader cannot identify the trial sample, the questionnaire respondents, or the source of the improvement percentages. Because these metrics are the empirical basis for the central claim, this inconsistency is load-bearing.
  2. [§3.2.1–§3.2.6, §4.2] The evaluation is circular for the central metrics. The same DeepSeek service generates cases with embedded diagnoses (§3.2.1 and §3.2.4), provides diagnostic suggestions (§3.2.3), and powers the expert evaluation engine (§3.2.6). The 92.5% diagnostic accuracy reported in §4.2 is an accuracy of the diagnostic decision-making module on 500 test cases, not an independent measurement of the doctors' diagnostic skills, and the improvement percentages in §4.5 are presented without any described pre-test/post-test design, control group, external rater, or gold standard. Reported accuracy and improvement could therefore reflect agreement between the trainee and the model that generated the case label, rather than genuine training gains; this directly affects the main claim.
  3. [§4.3–§4.5] No statistical methodology is provided for any headline number. There are no confidence intervals, significance tests, effect-size definitions, or descriptions of the outcome scales for the 35.6%, 28.4%, and 23.7% improvements, nor for the 99.95% stability figure that appears only in the abstract and conclusion. The absence of this methodology means the reported effectiveness cannot be verified, compared with alternative interventions, or reproduced.
  4. [Appendix A] The reproducibility materials are not present: the GitHub URL is the placeholder 'https://github.com/hakepai/-' and the online demo is 'https://hakepai.github.io/-/'. The paper therefore does not provide the source code or a working system needed to check the described modules or the evaluation claims, despite stating that the complete source code has been released.
  5. [§3.2.2, §3.2.3] Large verbatim passages are duplicated between the doctor-patient dialogue module and the diagnostic decision-making module, including the identical sentences 'Test data show that the system's dialogue content / diagnostic suggestions scored 92.5%' and 'Data show that doctors trained with the system improved their average ... evaluation scores by 35.6%.' This reuse indicates that these numbers are template text applied across modules rather than module-specific measurements, which further undermines the credibility of the reported metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Several references are to news websites or industry aggregators (e.g., references 4, 5, 7, 8, 9) rather than primary sources; these should be replaced with official statistics or peer-reviewed publications.
  2. [§1.3] The literature review repeatedly contains hedged admissions such as 'While there is no direct evidence of a specific system...' and 'there is no direct evidence of the Shanghai Mental Health Center's affective computing system'; these passages should be removed or rewritten with verified claims.
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript has numerous formatting artifacts, including Chinese-style parentheses, typographical errors such as 'infor matization', missing figure images despite references to Figure 1 and Figure 2, and no tables, which makes the paper difficult to read in its current form.
  4. [§4.1, §4.5] No ethics approval, informed consent, or data-protection statement is provided for the user trial and questionnaire involving physicians and patient-derived case data; such statements are expected for this kind of study.
  5. [§4.5] The text mentions that eye-tracking was used to analyze user behavior, but no eye-tracking results are reported anywhere in the chapter; this described method should either be reported or omitted.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Headline metrics are self-referential: the DeepSeek engine that generates cases and diagnoses also evaluates the trainees, so the reported diagnostic accuracy and improvement rates measure self-consistency rather than independent clinical competence.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2.6 (Expert Evaluation Module Implementation), with §3.2.1 and §3.2.3]
    "The expert evaluation module employs an intelligent evaluation system based on DeepSeek, combining traditional scoring standards to achieve comprehensive competency assessment. ... The system uses the DeepSeek API to analyze doctors' consultation dialogue content, diagnostic reasoning processes, and treatment plan selections, generating detailed evaluation reports."

    This makes 'expert evaluation' the output of the same DeepSeek model that generates the case with its embedded diagnosis (§3.2.1) and that provides the diagnostic suggestions being evaluated (§3.2.3). No independent gold standard or human expert grading is described for the reported diagnostic-accuracy and improvement metrics. The arbiter of correctness is therefore the generator of the ground truth, so the evaluation scores reduce to the model agreeing with itself.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Functional Testing Results), reporting diagnostic decision-making module accuracy]
    "The diagnostic decision-making module's testing focused on the system's reasoning accuracy and recommendation reliability. In 500 test cases, the system achieved a diagnostic accuracy rate of 92.5%, with an accuracy rate exceeding 95% for common mental disorders and 85% for complex cases."

    This headline accuracy is a property of the DeepSeek-powered diagnostic module, not a measured skill gain by the 60 trainee psychiatrists. Because the case diagnoses are generated by DeepSeek and the module's suggestions are also generated by DeepSeek, the 92.5% is an internal consistency rate of one model against itself. Presenting it as evidence of the system's training effectiveness treats the model's self-agreement as externally validated clinical accuracy.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.5 (User Experience Evaluation)]
    "Statistical data indicated that doctors using the system for training improved their mastery of professional knowledge, clinical thinking, and diagnostic skills by 35.6%, 28.4%, and 23.7%, respectively."

    No pre-test/post-test design, control group, outcome-scale definition, or independent rater is described in Chapter 4. The only evaluation engine described is the DeepSeek-based EvaluationEngine (§3.2.6), which scores the same dialogue and reasoning content produced by the DeepSeek-based case generator and diagnostic module. The claimed improvement percentages are therefore not anchored to any external measure of clinical competence and reduce to the system rating its own trainees against its own generated answers.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper is that the system produces excellent training outcomes: 96.5% dialogue accuracy, 92.5% diagnostic accuracy, and 23.7-35.6% improvements in knowledge mastery, clinical thinking, and diagnostic skills. The paper's own architecture makes these metrics self-referential. Case generation (§3.2.1), diagnostic suggestions (§3.2.3), and the 'expert' evaluation engine (§3.2.6) are all implemented through the DeepSeek API. The EvaluationEngine is the only described mechanism for scoring doctors' consultation, reasoning, and treatment-plan performance. Thus the diagnostic-accuracy figure reported in §4.2 is a property of the DeepSeek module itself, and the training-gain percentages in §4.5 are not connected to any independent gold standard, control group, or human expert review. The evaluation population is also internally inconsistent (abstract/conclusion: 60 psychiatrists; §4.5: 300 questionnaires; §2.1.1: 300 doctors from 18 hospitals), which prevents independent reconstruction of the trial. The GitHub and demo links in the appendix are placeholders ('hakepai/-'), so reproducibility is not established. These latter points are validity concerns rather than circularity, but they reinforce that the reported numbers cannot be checked against an external source. The circularity itself is concentrated in the evaluation design: the model that generates the ground truth also grades the answers, so the headline metrics measure self-consistency. I am not flagging the ordinary system-engineering content (architecture, performance, security testing) as circular; those sections have independent substance. But the paper's strongest claim, training effectiveness, rests on this self-referential evaluation, warranting a score of 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core contribution rests on the assumption that a third-party LLM is clinically reliable and that the system's self-generated cases and self-scored evaluations are valid measures of training progress. No new entity, model, or dataset is introduced; the free parameters of the evaluation engine are undisclosed.

free parameters (1)
  • Evaluation dimension weights in the multi-model fusion engine
    Section 3.2.6 says the system 'considers the weights of different evaluation dimensions' but does not report the values. These weights determine the improvement percentages and satisfaction scores, yet they are chosen by hand and undisclosed.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption DeepSeek API provides clinically accurate and reliable psychiatric knowledge for case generation, dialogue simulation, and diagnosis.
    The system delegates all core intelligence to a proprietary third-party API; the paper provides no independent verification of the model's psychiatric competence (Chapters 2-3).
  • domain assumption The anonymized real cases and expert-written teaching cases used to build the training database are representative and unbiased.
    Section 3.2.1 states cases come from multiple hospitals and expert-written sources, but no sampling details, inclusion criteria, or data quality statistics are provided.
  • domain assumption Expert review of generated cases and evaluations is a valid gold standard.
    Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.6 invoke expert review for quality control, but no expert panel details, number of reviewers, or inter-rater reliability are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design and Implementation of a Psychiatry Resident Training System Based on Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVV36LCB

@misc{pith2026250114530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design and Implementation of a Psychiatry Resident Training System Based on Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVV36LCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14530}
}
read the original abstract

Mental disorders have become a significant global public health issue, while the shortage of psychiatrists and inefficient training systems severely hinder the accessibility of mental health services. This paper designs and implements an artificial intelligence-based training system for psychiatrists. By integrating technologies such as large language models, knowledge graphs, and expert systems, the system constructs an intelligent and standardized training platform. It includes six functional modules: case generation, consultation dialogue, examination prescription, diagnostic decision-making, integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine prescription, and expert evaluation, providing comprehensive support from clinical skill training to professional level assessment.The system adopts a B/S architecture, developed using the Vue.js and Node.js technology stack, and innovatively applies deep learning algorithms for case generation and doctor-patient dialogue. In a clinical trial involving 60 psychiatrists at different levels, the system demonstrated excellent performance and training outcomes: system stability reached 99.95%, AI dialogue accuracy achieved 96.5%, diagnostic accuracy reached 92.5%, and user satisfaction scored 92.3%. Experimental data showed that doctors using the system improved their knowledge mastery, clinical thinking, and diagnostic skills by 35.6%, 28.4%, and 23.7%, respectively.The research results provide an innovative solution for improving the efficiency of psychiatrist training and hold significant importance for promoting the standardization and scalability of mental health professional development.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mental Health [Internet]

    WHO. Mental Health [Internet]. World Health Organization. 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/mental-health#tab=tab_1

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all [Internet]

    World Health Organization. World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all [Internet]. www.who.int. World Health Organization; 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049338

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Chinese expert consensus on the management of metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia

    Group C. Chinese expert consensus on the management of metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia. Chinese Journal of Psychiatry [Internet]. 2020 Feb 5 [cited 2025 Jan 23];53(01):3–10. Available from: https://training.yiigle.com/uploads/guide_html/%E7%B2%BE%E7%A5%9E%E5% 88%86%E8%A3%82%E7%97%87%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85%E4%BB%A3%E8%B0%A2%E7%BB %BC%E5%90%88%...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Depression hurts, depression costs: The medical spending attributable to depression and depressive symptoms in China

    Hsieh CR, Qin X. Depression hurts, depression costs: The medical spending attributable to depression and depressive symptoms in China. Health Economics. 2017 Oct 8;27(3):525–44

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Introduction to the China Mental Health Survey and the First Batch of Main Results | CMHS [Internet]

    NetEase. Introduction to the China Mental Health Survey and the First Batch of Main Results | CMHS [Internet]. 163.com. 2019 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.163.com/dy/article/E97DIR8505426ABE.html

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    www.who.int

    COVID-19 pandemic triggers 25% increase in prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide [Internet]. www.who.int. Available from: https://www.who.int/zh/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemictriggers- 25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Three years of the pandemic: 70 million more cases of depression, 90 million more cases of anxiety, and 100 million more cases of insomnia worldwide

    Tencent. Three years of the pandemic: 70 million more cases of depression, 90 million more cases of anxiety, and 100 million more cases of insomnia worldwide. Experts say the psychological impact of the pandemic may last over 10 years, with healthcare workers, infected individuals, and the elderly and children needing special attention [Internet]. Qq.com....

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Chyxx.com

    Analysis of the number of psychiatric hospitals, patient numbers, antipsychotic drug development, and pharmaceutical companies in China in 2024: The number of mental illness patients is rising year by year, and new treatments are emerging [Internet]. Chyxx.com. 2024 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.chyxx.com/industry/1196923.html

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Sohu.com

    Observations from a psychiatric hospital internship in Germany (1): A day in the life of a psychiatrist [Internet]. Sohu.com. 2018 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.sohu.com/a/278592508_653502

    2018

  2. [10]

    Center for Immersive and Simulationbased Learning

    Standardized Patient Program [Internet]. Center for Immersive and Simulationbased Learning. 2024 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://cisl.stanford.edu/standardized-patient-program.html

    2024

  3. [11]

    Tencent.com

    IBM's AI algorithm predicts mental illness through language expression - Tencent Cloud Developer Community [Internet]. Tencent.com. 2018 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://cloud.tencent.com/developer/news/113227

    2018

  4. [12]

    Center for Medical Simulation

    Center for Medical Simulation [Internet]. Center for Medical Simulation. 2022 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://harvardmedsim.org/training/

    2022

  5. [13]

    STAnford Medicine Research Data Repository

    Overview [Internet]. STAnford Medicine Research Data Repository. Stanford University; 2017 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://starr.stanford.edu/overview

    2017

  6. [14]

    Spectrum

    Stanford Researchers Design Consultation Service Utilizing Aggregate Patient Data [Internet]. Spectrum. 2021 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://med.stanford.edu/spectrum/about-spectrum/news/stanfordresearchers- design-consultation-service-utilizing-aggregate-patient-...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Cam.ac.uk

    Department of Psychiatry | Postgraduate Study [Internet]. Cam.ac.uk. 2025 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.postgraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/departments/cvpc

    2025

  8. [16]

    Knowledge graphs in psychiatric research: Potential applications and future perspectives

    Freidel S, Schwarz E. Knowledge graphs in psychiatric research: Potential applications and future perspectives. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica [Internet]. 2024;10.1111/acps.13717. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38886846/

    2024

  9. [17]

    The University of Tokyo

    AI development using neuroimaging for psychiatric disorders | The University of Tokyo [Internet]. The University of Tokyo. 2020 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/adm/uci/en/projects/ai/project_00002.html

    2020

  10. [18]

    The University of Tokyo

    Future mental health care may include diagnosis via brain scan and computer algorithm | The University of Tokyo [Internet]. The University of Tokyo. 2020 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.utokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/press/z0508_00125.html

    2020

  11. [19]

    Pay attention to doctor–patient dialogues: Multi-modal knowledge graph attention image-text embedding for COVID-19 diagnosis

    Zheng W, Yan L, Gou C, Zhang ZC, Jason Zhang J, Hu M, et al. Pay attention to doctor–patient dialogues: Multi-modal knowledge graph attention image-text embedding for COVID-19 diagnosis. Information Fusion. 2021 Nov;75:168–85

    2021

  12. [20]

    Bjmu.edu.cn

    Peking University Health Science Center Research [Internet]. Bjmu.edu.cn. 2018 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://research.bjmu.edu.cn/jdpt/jdml/gjjkyjd/gjlcyxyjzx/99455385623e44 d5b060ce012ffa0b3d.htm

    2018

  13. [21]

    synlp. GitHub - synlp/ChiMed-GPT: ChiMed-GPT is a Chinese medical large language model (LLM) built by continually training Ziya-v2 on Chinese medical data, where pre-training, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) are comprehensive...

    2023

  14. [22]

    ChiMed-GPT: A Chinese Medical Large Language Model with Full Training Regime and Better Alignment to Human Preferences [Internet]

    Tian Y, Gan R, Song Y, Zhang J, Zhang Y. ChiMed-GPT: A Chinese Medical Large Language Model with Full Training Regime and Better Alignment to Human Preferences [Internet]. arXiv.org. 2023. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06025

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Artificial intelligence in psychiatry research, diagnosis, and therapy

    Sun J, Dong QX, Wang SW, Zheng YB, Liu XX, Lu TS, et al. Artificial intelligence in psychiatry research, diagnosis, and therapy. Asian Journal of Psychiatry [Internet]. 2023 Sep 1;87(87):103705. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187620182300261...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Generating unseen diseases patient data using ontology enhanced generative adversarial networks

    Sun C, Dumontier M. Generating unseen diseases patient data using ontology enhanced generative adversarial networks. npj Digital Medicine [Internet]. 2025 Jan 3 [cited 2025 Jan 23];8(1). Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01421-0

    2025

  17. [25]

    Zhihai Platform

    The First in the Nation! “Zhihai Platform” Selected Among the First Batch of “Artificial Intelligence + Higher Education” Cases by the Ministry of Education [Internet]. Zju.edu.cn. 2024 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: http://www.en.cs.zju.edu.cn/2024/0912/c55703a2961491/page.htm

    2024

  18. [26]

    GitHub - serenayj/DRKnows: Diagnostic Reasoning Knowledge Graph for Large Language Model Diagnosis Prediction [Internet]

    serenayj. GitHub - serenayj/DRKnows: Diagnostic Reasoning Knowledge Graph for Large Language Model Diagnosis Prediction [Internet]. GitHub. 2024 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://github.com/serenayj/DRKnows

    2024

  19. [27]

    Reasoning- Enhanced Healthcare Predictions with Knowledge Graph Community Retrieval [Internet]

    Jiang P, Xiao C, Jiang M, Bhatia P, Kass-Hout T, Sun J, et al. Reasoning- Enhanced Healthcare Predictions with Knowledge Graph Community Retrieval [Internet]. arXiv.org. 2024 [cited 2025 Jan 23]. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04585 附录 附录一 系统源代码 本系统的完整源代码已开源发布在 Git...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    环境要求 - Node.js 14.0+ - Vue.js 3.0+ - MySQL 8.0+ - Redis 6.0+ - MongoDB 4.4+

  21. [29]

    部署步骤 - 克隆代码仓库 - 安装依赖包 - 配置数据库连接 - 启动服务进程 - 访问系统界面

  22. [30]

    注意事项 - 确保 DeepSeek API 密钥配置正确 - 数据库需要预先初始化 - 建议配置 HTTPS 证书 - 定期备份重要数据

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.