Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Patients often submit short, underspecified queries to healthcare chatbots that lack the patient-specific information needed to determine an appropriate response."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Mahyar Abbasian, Saba A. Farahani, Arshia Ilaty, Hung Cao +2 more
Published
Aug 20, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
35% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Aug 20, 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.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
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
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Patients often submit short, underspecified queries to healthcare chatbots that lack the patient-specific information needed to determine an appropriate response. Although these queries may be linguistically clear, they can support multiple plausible answers depending on undisclosed factors such as symptoms, diagnoses, medications, allergies, or dietary restrictions. A language model answering such a query directly may therefore rely on unsupported assumptions about the patient. We introduce a knowledge-guided agentic framework for mitigating patient-context ambiguity before final response generation. The framework operates between the patient and an otherwise unchanged downstream language model. It interprets the initial query, uses a task-specific knowledge graph to construct a set of plausible hypotheses, identifies the missing patient-context variables needed to distinguish among them, and asks targeted follow-up questions. The original query and the acquired context are then combined into a clarified prompt for the downstream model. We evaluated the framework across five language models using two controlled ambiguity-mitigation benchmarks: diagnosis retrieval from 1,034 symptom queries with clinically relevant evidence systematically masked, and dietary-safety classification from 487 queries with decisive health context omitted. The framework was compared with direct answering of the underspecified query and with rephrasing the same query without acquiring new patient information. In diagnosis retrieval, it increased overall exact Top-1 accuracy by at least 57.1 percentage points and selective exact Recall@5 by at least 77.7 percentage points across the five evaluated models compared with direct prompting. In dietary-safety classification, it improved accuracy across all five models and achieved the highest Matthews correlation coefficient for four...
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.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Patients often submit short, underspecified queries to healthcare chatbots that lack the patient-specific information needed to determine an appropriate response."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Patients often submit short, underspecified queries to healthcare chatbots that lack the patient-specific information needed to determine an appropriate response."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Patients often submit short, underspecified queries to healthcare chatbots that lack the patient-specific information needed to determine an appropriate response."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Patients often submit short, underspecified queries to healthcare chatbots that lack the patient-specific information needed to determine an appropriate response."
Accuracy, Recall, Recall@5, Top 1 accuracy
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"In diagnosis retrieval, it increased overall exact Top-1 accuracy by at least 57.1 percentage points and selective exact Recall@5 by at least 77.7 percentage points across the five evaluated models compared with direct prompting."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
Patients often submit short, underspecified queries to healthcare chatbots that lack the patient-specific information needed to determine an appropriate response.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
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, recall, recall@5, top-1 accuracy