PreprintCited by 1Mental Health via WritingEmotion and Mood RecognitionSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Detecting anxiety and depression in dialogues: a multi-label and explainable approach.

Open access

Abstract

Anxiety and depression are the most common mental health issues worldwide, affecting a non-negligible part of the population. Accordingly, stakeholders, including governments' health systems, are developing new strategies to promote early detection and prevention from a holistic perspective (i.e., addressing several disorders simultaneously). In this work, an entirely novel system for the multi-label classification of anxiety and depression is proposed. The input data consists of dialogues from user interactions with an assistant chatbot. Another relevant contribution lies in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for feature extraction, provided the complexity and variability of language. The combination of LLMs, given their high capability for language understanding, and Machine Learning (ML) models, provided their contextual knowledge about the classification problem thanks to the labeled data, constitute a promising approach towards mental health assessment. To promote the solution's trustworthiness, reliability, and accountability, explainability descriptions of the model's decision are provided in a graphical dashboard. Experimental results on a real dataset attain 90 % accuracy, improving those in the prior literature. The ultimate objective is to contribute in an accessible and scalable way before formal treatment occurs in the healthcare systems.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.17651

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Chain-of-Thought prompting and natural language explanation generation produce outputs that align with clinical reasoning conventions, mimicking the differential diagnosis process familiar to practitioners.

    “Chain-of-Thought prompting [62,64,78] and natural language explanation generation [72,74,75] produce outputs that align with clinical reasoning conventions, mimicking the differential diagnosis process familiar to practitioners.”
  • Of the 69 reviewed studies, only three included any user-facing evaluation of explanation presentation.

    “Of the 69 reviewed studies, only three [75,76,104] included any user-facing evaluation of explanation presentation.”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
de Arriba-Pérez, F., & García-Méndez, S.
Affiliations
Universidade de Vigo (ES)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7036830459
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Investigo Institutional repository of UVigo (Universidade de Vigo) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Xunta de Galicia (ED481D 2024/014, ED481B-2022-093, ED481B-, ED481D)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
anxiety detection, depression detection, multi-label classification, dialogue analysis, large language models, explainable AI, mental health screening, early detection of mental disorders

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