HFEPX · Eval paper review
Guan Gui, Peter Zandi, Jacob Taylor, Ananya Joshi
Published
Apr 23, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
40/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
45% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Domain Experts
Signals refreshed
Apr 23, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Psychiatric intake is a sequential, high-stakes information-gathering process in which clinicians must decide what to ask, in what order, and how to interpret incomplete or ambiguous responses under limited time. Despite growing interest in conversational AI for healthcare, there is still limited infrastructure for conversational AI in this application. Accordingly, we formulate this task as a question-selection problem with clinically grounded questions, known target information, and controllable patient difficulty. We also introduce a task-specific question-selection benchmark based on a bank of 655 clinician-authored intake questions and corresponding synthetic patient vignettes with 5 different behavioral conditions. In our evaluation, we compare random questioning, a clinical psychiatric intake form baseline, and an LLM-guided adaptive policy across 300 interview sessions spanning four patients and five behavioral conditions. Across the benchmark, the clinically ordered fixed form substantially outperforms random questioning, and the LLM-guided policy achieves the strongest overall recovery. The advantage of adaptation grows sharply under patient behavior that is less amenable to field recovery, especially under guarded-concise conditions. These findings suggest that performance in conversational clinical systems depends not only on language understanding after information is disclosed, but also on whether the system reaches the right topics within a limited interaction budget. More broadly, the benchmark provides a controlled framework for studying how clinical structure and adaptive follow-up contribute to information recovery in interactive clinical machine learning.
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.
Expert Verification
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Psychiatric intake is a sequential, high-stakes information-gathering process in which clinicians must decide what to ask, in what order, and how to interpret incomplete or ambiguous responses under limited time."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Psychiatric intake is a sequential, high-stakes information-gathering process in which clinicians must decide what to ask, in what order, and how to interpret incomplete or ambiguous responses under limited time."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Psychiatric intake is a sequential, high-stakes information-gathering process in which clinicians must decide what to ask, in what order, and how to interpret incomplete or ambiguous responses under limited time."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Psychiatric intake is a sequential, high-stakes information-gathering process in which clinicians must decide what to ask, in what order, and how to interpret incomplete or ambiguous responses under limited time."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Psychiatric intake is a sequential, high-stakes information-gathering process in which clinicians must decide what to ask, in what order, and how to interpret incomplete or ambiguous responses under limited time."
Domain Experts
Helpful for staffing comparability.
"Psychiatric intake is a sequential, high-stakes information-gathering process in which clinicians must decide what to ask, in what order, and how to interpret incomplete or ambiguous responses under limited time."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Psychiatric intake is a sequential, high-stakes information-gathering process in which clinicians must decide what to ask, in what order, and how to interpret incomplete or ambiguous responses under limited time.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Expert Verification
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
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
No metric terms extracted.
