The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Detecting anxiety and depression in dialogues: a multi-label and explainable approach.
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [75]
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.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [75]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review
Mishra, N., Abu-Hanna, A., & Calixto, I. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2026.103501
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)
- arXiv
- 2412.17651
- OpenAlex
- W7036830459
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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