The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Sentiment Reasoning for Healthcare
Open accessAbstract
Transparency in AI healthcare decision-making is crucial. By incorporating rationales to explain reason for each predicted label, users could understand Large Language Models (LLMs)'s reasoning to make better decision. In this work, we introduce a new task - Sentiment Reasoning - for both speech and text modalities, and our proposed multimodal multitask framework and the world's largest multimodal sentiment analysis dataset. Sentiment Reasoning is an auxiliary task in sentiment analysis where the model predicts both the sentiment label and generates the rationale behind it based on the input transcript. Our study conducted on both human transcripts and Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) transcripts shows that Sentiment Reasoning helps improve model transparency by providing rationale for model prediction with quality semantically comparable to humans while also improving model's classification performance (+2% increase in both accuracy and macro-F1) via rationale-augmented fine-tuning. Also, no significant difference in the semantic quality of generated rationales between human and ASR transcripts. All code, data (five languages - Vietnamese, English, Chinese, German, and French) and models are published online: https://github.com/leduckhai/Sentiment-Reasoning
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“These were employed in studies with available gold-standard rationales [65,69,72,98,124]”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [124]
In the citing paper
“Studies utilizing explanations for model improvement employed diverse techniques: rationale-guided training where explanation losses improve learned representations [98,123,124]; iterative self-refinement through agent dialogue or bidirectional verification [65,83,109]; knowledge distillation from large to compact models via structured rationales [110]; and feature engineering where LLM-generated”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [124]
In the citing paper
“Rationale-supervised training [67,69,90,98,110,123,124] represents a middle ground where models learn to generate explanations through supervised examples, potentially inheriting the reasoning patterns of expert annotators.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [124]
In the citing paper
“In rationale-augmented training models learn to jointly predict labels and generate justifications, which have led to improvements in both accuracy and explanation quality [124,158].”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [124]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Nguyen, K.-N., Le-Duc, K., Tat, B. P., Le, D., Vo-Dang, L., & Hy, T.-S.
- Affiliations
- William & Mary (US)
- University Health Network (CA)
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Bucknell University (US)
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2407.21054
- OpenAlex
- W4401306284
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Keywords
- sentiment analysis, rationale generation, large language models, multimodal sentiment analysis, automatic speech recognition transcripts, model transparency, healthcare decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sentiment Reasoning for Healthcare. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2407.21054
- The paper
- Nguyen, K.-N., Le-Duc, K., Tat, B. P., Le, D., Vo-Dang, L., & Hy, T.-S. (2024). Sentiment Reasoning for Healthcare. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2407.21054