HFEPX · Eval paper review
Guoyi Li, Shihao Xu, Jiatong Ma, Yunyun Han +2 more
Published
Mar 4, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Moderate
Usefulness score
65/100 (Medium)
Extraction confidence
70% (Moderate)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Mar 4, 2026
This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.
Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Best use
Secondary protocol comparison source
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
No major weakness surfaced.
Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Large language models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, yet psychiatric consultation poses substantially higher demands due to subjective ambiguity and comorbidity complexity: an agent must continuously extract psychopathological cues from incomplete and inconsistent patient reports in multi-turn interactions and perform rigorous differential diagnostic reasoning. However, existing methods face two fundamental challenges. First, without criteria-grounded clinical supports, they are prone to unsupported clinical assertions when symptoms are atypical or underspecified. Second, in multi-turn interactions, they struggle to mitigate inquiry drift (off-topic or low-yield questioning) and optimize questioning strategies. To address these challenges, we propose MIND, a unified inquiry--diagnosis reinforcement learning framework for psychiatric consultation. Specifically, we build a Criteria-Grounded Psychiatric Reasoning Bank (PRB) that summarizes dialogue context into clinical retrieval states, retrieves semantically similar reference consultations, and distills reusable criteria-grounded clinical supports to guide criteria-aligned inquiry and reasoning. Building on this foundation, MIND enforces explicit clinical reasoning with rubric-based process rewards to provide fine-grained supervision over intermediate decision steps, and incorporates a value-aware trajectory rectification mechanism to jointly improve information acquisition and diagnostic decision-making across turns. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MIND consistently outperforms strong baselines in diagnostic accuracy, empathetic interaction quality, interpretability, and generalization.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
Rubric Rating
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Large language models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, yet psychiatric consultation poses substantially higher demands due to subjective ambiguity and comorbidity complexity: an agent must continuously extract psychopathological cues from incomplete and inconsistent patient reports in multi-turn interactions and perform rigorous differential diagnostic reasoning."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Large language models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, yet psychiatric consultation poses substantially higher demands due to subjective ambiguity and comorbidity complexity: an agent must continuously extract psychopathological cues from incomplete and inconsistent patient reports in multi-turn interactions and perform rigorous differential diagnostic reasoning."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Large language models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, yet psychiatric consultation poses substantially higher demands due to subjective ambiguity and comorbidity complexity: an agent must continuously extract psychopathological cues from incomplete and inconsistent patient reports in multi-turn interactions and perform rigorous differential diagnostic reasoning."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Large language models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, yet psychiatric consultation poses substantially higher demands due to subjective ambiguity and comorbidity complexity: an agent must continuously extract psychopathological cues from incomplete and inconsistent patient reports in multi-turn interactions and perform rigorous differential diagnostic reasoning."
Accuracy
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"Extensive experiments demonstrate that MIND consistently outperforms strong baselines in diagnostic accuracy, empathetic interaction quality, interpretability, and generalization."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
Large language models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, yet psychiatric consultation poses substantially higher demands due to subjective ambiguity and comorbidity complexity: an agent must continuously extract psychopathological cues from incomplete and inconsistent patient reports in multi-turn interactions and perform rigorous differential diagnostic reasoning.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Rubric Rating
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy
