Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

A knowledge-guided agentic framework for mitigating patient-context ambiguity in health queries

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

Should you rely on this paper?

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.

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.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

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...

What we could verify

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.

Human Feedback Types

missing

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."

Evaluation Modes

partial

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."

Quality Controls

missing

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."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

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."

Reported Metrics

partial

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."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

accuracyrecallrecall@5top-1 accuracy
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Medicine
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

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.

Key takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • We introduce a knowledge-guided agentic framework for mitigating patient-context ambiguity before final response generation.
  • 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…
  • In dietary-safety classification, it improved accuracy across all five models and achieved the highest Matthews correlation coefficient for four...

Why it matters for eval

  • We introduce a knowledge-guided agentic framework for mitigating patient-context ambiguity before final response generation.
  • In dietary-safety classification, it improved accuracy across all five models and achieved the highest Matthews correlation coefficient for four...

Researcher checklist

  • 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