REVIEW 1 cited by
MediTOD: An English Dialogue Dataset for Medical History Taking with Comprehensive Annotations
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Medical task-oriented dialogue systems can assist doctors by collecting patient medical history, aiding in diagnosis, or guiding treatment selection, thereby reducing doctor burnout and expanding access to medical services. However, doctor-patient dialogue datasets are not readily available, primarily due to privacy regulations. Moreover, existing datasets lack comprehensive annotations involving medical slots and their different attributes, such as symptoms and their onset, progression, and severity. These comprehensive annotations are crucial for accurate diagnosis. Finally, most existing datasets are non-English, limiting their utility for the larger research community. In response, we introduce MediTOD, a new dataset of doctor-patient dialogues in English for the medical history-taking task. Collaborating with doctors, we devise a questionnaire-based labeling scheme tailored to the medical domain. Then, medical professionals create the dataset with high-quality comprehensive annotations, capturing medical slots and their attributes. We establish benchmarks in supervised and few-shot settings on MediTOD for natural language understanding, policy learning, and natural language generation subtasks, evaluating models from both TOD and biomedical domains. We make MediTOD publicly available for future research.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
MedRealMM: A Real-World Multimodal Benchmark for Chinese Online Medical Consultation
On a new benchmark of 5,620 real multimodal online consultations, top LLMs trail the original physicians mainly because they trigger more unsafe or unsupported negative criteria.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.