MIND, a criteria-grounded evidence-state decision interface, introduces MIND, a criteria-grounded evidence-state decision interface that targets screening-level decision support, not autonomous diagnosis.
Abstract
Psychiatric consultation requires agents to elicit discriminative evidence, map uncertain narratives to diagnostic criteria, and decide when evidence suffices. Existing dialogue and retrieval-augmented systems condition policies on raw histories or appended passages, leaving observed evidence, missing checks, differentials, and support reliability entangled. We introduce MIND, a criteria-grounded evidence-state decision interface. At each turn, MIND constructs a typed state containing observed evidence, unresolved criterion checks, active differentials, criterion-linked supports, and reliability metadata. A training-split Psychiatric Reasoning Bank supplies gated supports, turning retrieval into state construction rather than prompt injection. The same state conditions action selection, process rewards, information-gain scoring, and trajectory rectification. Under EMR-grounded simulator protocols, MIND improves accuracy by 8.8 and 7.3 points over strong inference-only, RAG, and RL baselines, with gains transferring to public MDD-5k dialogues. Matched interventions attribute these gains to the shared state rather than prompt length, retrieval text, or formatting. MIND targets screening-level decision support, not autonomous diagnosis. Code is available at https://github.com/Lingxi-mental-health/MIND.{\AA}
Large language models show promise in clinical reasoning, but psychiatric interviewing requires guiding an evolving conversation. Their ability to carry out this interactive assessment remains less studied. We present PsyCIDRA, a dual-agent framework linking free-form psychiatric interviewing with diagnostic reasoning...
HiMA-MDD is introduced, a hierarchical multi-agent harness that aligns this assessment hierarchy with three agent layers and naturally yields a Hierarchical Evidence Trace that preserves all intermediate evidence, judgments, and revisions for auditability.
Experiments show that DSM-guided summarization and rationale-augmented reasoning substantially improve transcript-based mental health classification performance and indicate that human validation is indispensable when applying LLMs in psychiatry, even though the process is inherently time-consuming.
June-Woo Kim, Haram Yoon, Dawoon Jung et al.· IEEE Access· 0 citations
This work presents a source-grounded framework to construct progressive multimodal diagnostic dialogues from case reports and an evaluation strategy for assessing MLLMs on final diagnosis, diagnostic reasoning, and image-finding interpretation and demonstrates that fluent responses do not necessarily reflect evidence-g...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support diagnosis across medicine, yet extending its success to psychological assessment raises a distinct epistemological problem. Psychological diagnosis requires interpreting subjective experience, contextualizing clinical information, and developing explanatory h...
Andrea Primo Pierotti, Marco Cremaschi· Frontiers in Digital Health· 0 citations
The Evidence Package Benchmark is introduced, integrating 1,870 packages across six heterogeneous sources with explicit modality masks and evidence permissions, and EviBound, a protocol-aware evidence control framework is proposed, a protocol-aware evidence control framework for safer clinical NLP research.
Cheng-Yuan Gao, Jiang Wu, Tao Lu et al.· 0 citations