Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 168 references

Interpersonal Theory of Suicide as a Lens to Examine Suicidal Ideation in Online Spaces

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide can be operationalized as a computational labeling framework for online suicidal-ideation posts, identifying 1,508 of 59,607 r/SuicideWatch posts as exhibiting all three IPTS risk…

desk verdict Theory-driven labeling of suicide-risk posts is a good idea; the validation of the 'lethally suicidal' label does not yet support the headline numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13277 v1 pith:4SELTFRT submitted 2025-04-17 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CLcs.CYcs.SI

Soorya Ram Shimgekar , Violeta J. Rodriguez , Paul A. Bloom , Dong Whi Yoo , Koustuv Saha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CLcs.CYcs.SI
keywords suicidalideationInterpersonalTheoryofSuicideonlinementalhealthdiscourseRedditr/SuicideWatchnaturallanguageprocessingAIchatbotssocialsupport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (IPTS), a clinical framework explaining suicidal behavior through three converging risk factors, can be turned into a computational labeling system for large-scale online mental-health discourse. The authors apply it to 59,607 posts from r/SuicideWatch and claim to identify 1,508 posts, 2.5 percent of the dataset, that express all three risk factors: thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, and acquired capability for suicide. If the text-to-risk-factor mapping is sound, the framework would give researchers and platforms a theory-grounded way to triage crisis posts and to study how peer support differs across stages of suicidal ideation. The paper also analyzes human responses and compares AI chatbot responses, arguing that AI improves readability and structure but lacks the personalization and emotional depth of human support.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a theory-to-language mapping. The IPTS causal pathway is translated into four observable dimensions—loneliness and lack of reciprocal love feed thwarted belongingness, self-hate and liability feed perceived burdensomeness, and acquired capability is labeled directly—and each is anchored by a codebook of seed phrases. Posts and seed phrases are embedded with a transformer model, and cosine similarity above a 0.6 threshold assigns labels; the codebook is iteratively expanded with automatically extracted keywords until it stops changing. The three-way intersection of risk factors defines the 'lethally suicidal' category, and this mapping carries the whole paper: the 1,508 count, the topic profiles, the response analyses, and the AI comparison all depend on it.

What would settle it

Have two independent clinicians blind to the automated labels rate a fresh random sample of 500 r/SuicideWatch posts for the three IPTS risk factors; if their agreement with the pipeline's labels falls well below the reported 74 percent for the lethally suicidal category, the risk-factor mapping and the 1,508 count collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that IPTS holds up as a lens on real online distress. A two-stage pipeline—distant-supervised dimension classifiers plus cosine-similarity matching against an iteratively refined seed-keyword codebook—labels posts by four dimensions (loneliness, lack of reciprocal love, self-hate, liability), combines them into the three IPTS risk factors, and flags 1,508 posts (2.5 percent) that exhibit all three as lethally suicidal. Topic analysis finds these high-risk posts marked by planning and attempts, methods and tools, and weakness and pain. The paper further reports that peer responses differ by risk factor—negative and tentative for thwarted belongingness, positive but hesitant for perceived burdensomeness, urgent and personal for acquired capability—and that AI-generated replies, while more readable, semantically aligned, and formal, are judged by expert clinicians as lacking personalization and genuine empathy.

Load-bearing premise

The entire framework rests on the assumption that a post's resemblance to a short list of hand-picked phrases, measured at a similarity cutoff chosen by trial and error on the same data, truly tells whether the writer is experiencing the theory's risk factors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platforms could rank posts by IPTS risk-factor count and flag posts with all three factors for immediate human review instead of relying on keyword matching alone.
  • The linguistic signatures of high-risk posts—planning and attempts, methods and tools, weakness and pain—give crisis-detection systems concrete terms to monitor.
  • Because response style varies with risk factor, volunteer training can be tailored: validate isolation, reassure burdensomeness carefully, and treat capability language as an urgent cue for intervention.
  • AI chatbots prompted with IPTS categories and supportive-response characteristics produce more structured, aligned replies, but the expert evaluation implies they should complement human responders rather than replace them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the 0.6 cosine threshold for labeling was tuned by trial and error on the same dataset, the exact count of 1,508 lethally suicidal posts is likely threshold-sensitive; varying the cutoff between 0.5 and 0.7 would show how much of the headline number depends on that choice.
  • Using a hate-speech corpus to seed the self-hate dimension is an indirect proxy; if self-hate language in suicidal posts differs systematically from hate speech, the self-hate dimension and therefore the perceived-burdensomeness risk factor may be mislabeled in a nontrivial fraction of posts.
  • A natural testable extension is to follow users forward in time and check whether posts flagged as lethally suicidal are more likely than other flagged posts to be followed by disclosures of attempts or engagement with crisis resources, validating the label against later behavior rather than expert ratings alone.
  • The expert evaluation of AI responses suggests the empathy gap is not just a matter of prompt wording; if that holds, improving AI support requires fine-tuning on supportive-response data or hybrid human-AI workflows, not just more elaborate prompting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (IPTS) to 59,607 posts from Reddit's r/SuicideWatch, developing a computational pipeline that labels posts by IPTS dimensions (Loneliness, Lack of Reciprocal Love, Self-Hate, Liability) and risk factors (Thwarted Belongingness, Perceived Burdensomeness, Acquired Capability). A post is termed 'lethally suicidal' when it exhibits all three risk factors; the paper reports 1,508 such posts (Section 4.2.4). The pipeline combines distantly supervised binary classifiers, a seed-keyword codebook (Table 2), cosine-similarity thresholding at 0.6 tuned by trial and error, and iterative RAKE-based codebook expansion (Section 4.2.2). Aim 1 then characterizes posts via BERTopic topic modeling (Section 4.3). Aim 2 analyzes supportive comments with LIWC and SAGE (Section 5). Aim 3 evaluates GPT-4o responses to posts under three prompting conditions using lexico-semantic metrics and expert review by psychologist co-authors (Section 6). The paper concludes that high-risk posts express planning, attempts, methods, and pain; that responders adapt language to risk-factor type; and that AI responses are structurally coherent but lack personalization and deep empathy. The authors acknowledge in Section 7.4 that the data lack formal clinical validation against DSM-5 or RDoC.

Significance. If the labeling pipeline is valid, the paper offers a theory-driven computational approach to studying suicidal ideation in online spaces, with potential applications to triage, moderator support, and AI-based crisis response. The strengths include the large publicly sourced dataset, the explicit use of an established psychological framework, the multi-method linguistic analyses of responses, and the inclusion of psychologist input in evaluating AI responses. The paper also responsibly discusses ethical and privacy concerns, including self-selection bias and risks of automated risk assessment. However, the central contribution rests on the validity of the IPTS labeling, and the current validation is not sufficient to support the paper's headline quantitative claims, especially the 1,508 'lethally suicidal' posts and the topic-level characterizations that follow from those labels. The issues identified below are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions; they are addressable with additional validation and careful reframing, so the work is a candidate for major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.2, Eq. (1) and Table 2] The cosine similarity threshold of 0.6 is described as 'determined through iterative experimentation of trial and error to optimize label quality' on the same data that is later used to report label distributions. This in-sample tuning provides no unbiased estimate of labeling accuracy and risks absorbing dataset-specific noise rather than IPTS constructs. Please select the threshold on a held-out development set with human labels, or report the sensitivity of the 1,508 count and downstream analyses to threshold values over a plausible range.
  2. [Section 4.2.1] The distantly supervised classifier for Self-Hate is trained on the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, which annotates outward-directed hate speech. The construct alignment with self-directed contempt is not established, and the reported 'linguistic equivalence' test (Section 4.2.3) compares embedding similarity between classified posts and the training corpus, which does not demonstrate that the classifier distinguishes self-hate from hate speech. Please provide evidence of construct validity, for example by showing examples of true and false positives, or replacing/augmenting the distant supervision with a self-hate-specific annotated dataset.
  3. [Section 4.2.3] The expert validation uses a single coauthor rating 50 posts per category, with no inter-rater reliability, no blinding, and no reported sampling procedure. The lowest agreement, 74%, is for the highest-stakes category ('lethally suicidal'), which is also the category with the most consequential downstream claims. Please add independent annotation by at least two raters (ideally clinically trained, blinded to the computational labels), report agreement statistics such as Cohen's kappa, and validate a larger and representative sample, particularly for the lethal category.
  4. [Section 4.2.4 and Section 7.4] The abstract and Section 4.2.4 state that 1,508 posts are 'lethally suicidal' and that these posts carry the highest risk of suicidal behavior, but Section 7.4 explicitly concedes that the data lack formal clinical validation based on DSM-5 or RDoC. Because the term 'lethally suicidal' implies a clinical judgment that the pipeline cannot support, either add clinical validation against established instruments or reframe the label throughout (including the abstract) as 'IPTS-concordant' or 'IPTS high-risk' computational constructs, with the limitation clearly stated wherever the count is reported.
  5. [Table 2 and Table 6] There is a partial circularity between the labeling and the topic characterization. The Acquired Capability seed codebook in Table 2 explicitly includes method and tool phrases such as 'cutting one's wrists', 'pulling the trigger on a gun', 'jumping off a building', and 'overdose', and Section 4.3 then reports that lethally suicidal posts are strongly associated with the 'Planning and Attempts' and 'Methods and Tools' topics in Table 6. Because the same posts were labeled using those very phrases, the topic association is partly by construction. Please acknowledge this circularity and, where possible, assess whether the topic associations persist when the seed phrases are removed from the labeling vocabulary.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The sentence 'A popular and well-validated psychological framework that offers a structured perspective on SI thoughts and behaviors is the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (IPTS) [71, 151]. , which IPTS posits...' contains an extra comma and a sentence fragment; please revise.
  2. [Section 4.2.3] The text says 'we conducted an expert validation of 450 classified posts' and then refers to 'the four RiskFactor'; there are three risk factors (plus the lethal intersection), so the wording should be updated for clarity.
  3. [Table 3 caption] The caption 'A post is classified as a RiskFactor if it shows a similarity to both its corresponding Dimensions is greater than 0.60' is grammatically awkward; please rephrase.
  4. [Section 6.2.1] The readability discussion is confusing because the Coleman-Liau Index increases with text difficulty, yet the text says 'AI responses show higher readability' and also that higher readability 'can also imply a greater educational requirement for comprehension.' Please clarify the direction of the index and the interpretation.
  5. [Table 6] The normalized distribution values for 'Substance Use' appear to dominate every column (e.g., 0.70 for Lethally Suicidal), which seems inconsistent with the qualitative claim that 'Despair and Emotional Struggle' is prominent across all categories; please clarify how the normalization was computed and whether the topic proportions sum to 1 per column.
  6. [Section 4.3] The statement 'Out of these 9 topics, we dropped Topic -1' should clarify that Topic -1 is BERTopic's default outlier topic, and how many posts fell into that topic.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Two load-bearing steps reduce by construction: the 'Methods and Tools' topic finding restates the Acquired Capability seed codebook, and the classifier validation compares output to its own training corpora.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2.2 / Table 2 / Section 4.3 / Table 6]
    "Table 2 (Acquired Capability): “cutting one’s wrists, pulling the trigger on a gun, jumping off a building, overdose.” §4.2.2: “labeling a post under a specific Dimension if the similarity exceeds a threshold of 0.6.” §4.3: “A particularly concerning theme, ‘Planning and Attempts’, was strongly associated with the RiskFactor of Acquired Capability.” Table 6 lists “Methods and Tools” as associated with Lethally Suicidal and Acquired Capability."

    The Acquired Capability seed codebook already consists of method/tool phrases (overdose, jumping off a building, pulling a trigger, cutting wrists). Posts are assigned to Acquired Capability precisely when their embeddings are similar to these phrases at a 0.6 cosine threshold. BERTopic then clusters those same posts, and the paper reports that “Planning and Attempts” and “Methods and Tools” themes are associated with Acquired Capability and Lethally Suicidal posts. This association is a restatement of the labeling criterion rather than an independent discovery: the posts were selected for containing method/tool vocabulary, so a topic model on them is expected to surface method/tool themes.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2.3]
    "We measured word embedding-based similarities between the posts classified under each Dimension and corresponding semantically relevant datasets to understand if the dataset used was the correct dataset to train such a classifier model or not. The results demonstrated high similarity scores, indicating strong alignment between distant data and classified Dimension posts of SI—80.4% for loneliness, 83.3% for lack of reciprocal love, 94.3% for self-hate, and 76.2% for liability."

    The “corresponding semantically relevant datasets” are the same distant-supervision corpora used to train the classifiers in §4.2.1 (LonelyDataset, the psychosocial mental-health dataset, the hate speech corpus, and LoST). A classifier trained to separate those corpora will, by construction, produce predictions that are embedding-similar to those corpora. Measuring similarity between the classifier’s outputs and its own training data is therefore a consistency check with the training distribution, not independent validation. The high 94.3% self-hate score, for example, chiefly reflects the fact that the classifier was trained on the hate speech corpus.

full rationale

The paper’s central IPTS-derived claims are partially circular. First, the Acquired Capability codebook in Table 2 already contains method/tool phrases such as “overdose”, “jumping off a building”, “pulling the trigger on a gun”, and “cutting one’s wrists”; posts are labeled Acquired Capability when their embeddings are similar to these phrases (§4.2.2). The later topic-model finding that Acquired Capability and Lethally Suicidal posts express “Planning and Attempts” and “Methods and Tools” (§4.3, Table 6) is therefore a restatement of the selection criterion rather than an independent discovery. Second, the validation in §4.2.3 measures similarity between classifier outputs and the very datasets used to train those classifiers, so the reported high alignment scores are a consequence of fitting rather than independent evidence. In addition, the 0.6 threshold was chosen by “trial and error” on the same data, which further means the 1,508 “lethally suicidal” count is not a stable empirical quantity; this is a methodological weakness that compounds the circularity but is not itself a separate definitional reduction. The Aim 2 response analyses, LIWC/SAGE comparisons, and Aim 3 AI-chatbot evaluation are independent of the IPTS labeling and retain evidentiary value. On balance, the core IPTS characterization is partially circular, so a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the IPTS mapping (seed keywords, threshold, distant supervision data) and on the representativeness of the expert validation. These are author-chosen operationalizations, not externally grounded with released artifacts or clinical outcome data.

free parameters (3)
  • cosine similarity threshold = 0.6
    Determined through iterative trial and error to optimize label quality on the same dataset, not a pre-specified or externally validated threshold (Section 4.2.2).
  • BERTopic number of topics k = 9
    Selected by coherence score on the same posts and manual inspection; no held-out data (Section 4.3).
  • LSTM hyperparameters = 64-dim embedding, 128 units, dropout
    Chosen without systematic search; affects the distantly supervised classifiers but not the central claim directly.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption IPTS is a valid model of suicidal ideation and behavior.
    The paper relies on IPTS as the theoretical grounding (Sections 2.1 and 4.1); if IPTS is inadequate, the labeled categories lose meaning.
  • ad hoc to paper Distant supervision datasets are semantically aligned with the IPTS dimensions.
    Loneliness, relationships, hate speech, and low self-esteem datasets are assumed to capture loneliness, lack of reciprocal love, self-hate, and liability respectively (Section 4.2.1); the hate speech to self-hate mapping is explicitly acknowledged as indirect.
  • ad hoc to paper Seed keywords in Table 2 adequately operationalize each IPTS dimension.
    The codebook is constructed from prior IPTS literature, but the specific phrase list and its coverage are author-chosen (Section 4.2.1).
  • domain assumption LIWC and SAGE linguistic features reflect the psychological constructs they are named after.
    Standard assumption in computational text analysis; the paper cites prior validation (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption Expert validation on 450 posts by one coauthor is representative and unbiased.
    The manual validation is described as done by 'one coauthor with long-term experience' (Section 4.2.3), not an independent blinded panel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpersonal Theory of Suicide as a Lens to Examine Suicidal Ideation in Online Spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4SELTFRT

@misc{pith2026250413277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpersonal Theory of Suicide as a Lens to Examine Suicidal Ideation in Online Spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4SELTFRT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13277}
}
read the original abstract

Suicide is a critical global public health issue, with millions experiencing suicidal ideation (SI) each year. Online spaces enable individuals to express SI and seek peer support. While prior research has revealed the potential of detecting SI using machine learning and natural language analysis, a key limitation is the lack of a theoretical framework to understand the underlying factors affecting high-risk suicidal intent. To bridge this gap, we adopted the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (IPTS) as an analytic lens to analyze 59,607 posts from Reddit's r/SuicideWatch, categorizing them into SI dimensions (Loneliness, Lack of Reciprocal Love, Self Hate, and Liability) and risk factors (Thwarted Belongingness, Perceived Burdensomeness, and Acquired Capability of Suicide). We found that high-risk SI posts express planning and attempts, methods and tools, and weaknesses and pain. In addition, we also examined the language of supportive responses through psycholinguistic and content analyses to find that individuals respond differently to different stages of Suicidal Ideation (SI) posts. Finally, we explored the role of AI chatbots in providing effective supportive responses to suicidal ideation posts. We found that although AI improved structural coherence, expert evaluations highlight persistent shortcomings in providing dynamic, personalized, and deeply empathetic support. These findings underscore the need for careful reflection and deeper understanding in both the development and consideration of AI-driven interventions for effective mental health support.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic representation on the causal pathway to lethal suicidal attempts based on the IPTS [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coherence scores by varying the number of topics ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

168 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alaa Ali Abd-Alrazaq, Asma Rababeh, Mohannad Alajlani, Bridgette M Bewick, and Mowafa Househ. 2020. Effectiveness and safety of using chatbots to improve mental health: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of medical Internet research 22, 7 (2020), e16021

    2020

  2. [2]

    Ismiel Hossen Abir

    Md. Ismiel Hossen Abir. 2024. Psychosocial Mental Health Analysis: Understanding the Interplay of Psychological and Social Factors in Mental Health. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/mdismielhossenabir/psychosocial-mental-health-analysis

    2024

  3. [3]

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2009. SAFE-T Pocket Card: Suicide Assessment Five-Step Evaluation and Triage for Clinicians. https://adaa.org/sites/default/files/SMA09-4432.pdf SMA09-4432. Interpersonal Theory of Suicide as a Lens to Examine Suicidal Ideation in Online Spaces • 25

    2009

  4. [4]

    Mohammed Al-Mosaiwi and Tom Johnstone. 2018. In an absolute state: Elevated use of absolutist words is a marker specific to anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Clinical psychological science 6, 4 (2018), 529–542

    2018

  5. [5]

    Daniyal Alghazzawi, Hayat Ullah, Naila Tabassum, Sahar K Badri, and Muhammad Zubair Asghar. 2025. Explainable AI-based suicidal and non-suicidal ideations detection from social media text with enhanced ensemble technique. Scientific Reports 15, 1 (2025), 1111

    2025

  6. [6]

    Tim Althoff, Kevin Clark, and Jure Leskovec. 2016. Large-scale analysis of counseling conversations: An application of natural language processing to mental health. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4 (2016), 463–476

    2016

  7. [7]

    Nazanin Andalibi, Oliver L Haimson, Munmun De Choudhury, and Andrea Forte. 2018. Social support, reciprocity, and anonymity in responses to sexual abuse disclosures on social media. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 25, 5 (2018), 1–35

    2018

  8. [8]

    Nazanin Andalibi, Pinar Ozturk, and Andrea Forte. 2017. Sensitive Self-disclosures, Responses, and Social Support on Instagram: the case of# depression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing . 1485–1500

    2017

Show all 168 references
  1. [9]

    American Psychiatric Association et al. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (DSM-5) . American Psychiatric Pub

    2013

  2. [10]

    John W Ayers, Adam Poliak, Mark Dredze, Eric C Leas, Zechariah Zhu, Jessica B Kelley, Dennis J Faix, Aaron M Goodman, Christopher A Longhurst, Michael Hogarth, et al. 2023. Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a publi...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Nikolay Babakov, David Dale, Ilya Gusev, Irina Krotova, and Alexander Panchenko. 2023. Don’t lose the message while paraphrasing: A study on content preserving style transfer. In International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems . Springer, 47–61

    2023

  4. [12]

    Anithamol Babu and Akhil P Joseph. 2024. Artificial intelligence in mental healthcare: transformative potential vs. the necessity of human interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 15 (2024), 1378904

    2024

  5. [13]

    Luke Balcombe. 2023. AI chatbots in digital mental health. In Informatics, Vol. 10. MDPI, 82

    2023

  6. [14]

    Anushka Bhagchandani and Aryan Nayak. 2022. Deep learning based chatbot framework for mental health therapy. In Advances in Data and Information Sciences: Proceedings of ICDIS 2021 . Springer, 271–281

    2022

  7. [15]

    Jonas Bjärehed, Hannes Grönberg, and Erik Jarlvik. 2023. The different faces of online support: A thematic analysis of responses to help-seeking related to depression and suicidal ideation in public online forums. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Dawn O Braithwaite, Vincent R Waldron, and Jerry Finn. 1999. Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities. Health communication 11, 2 (1999), 123–151

    1999

  9. [17]

    Lasse Brandt, Shuyan Liu, Christine Heim, and Andreas Heinz. 2022. The effects of social isolation stress and discrimination on mental health. Translational psychiatry 12, 1 (2022), 398

    2022

  10. [18]

    Lily A Brown, Edwin D Boudreaux, Sarah A Arias, Ivan W Miller, Alexis M May, Carlos A Camargo Jr, Craig J Bryan, and Michael F Armey. 2020. C-SSRS performance in emergency department patients at high risk for suicide. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 50, 6 (2020), 1097–1104

    2020

  11. [19]

    Sven Buechel, Anneke Buffone, Barry Slaff, Lyle Ungar, and João Sedoc. 2018. Modeling empathy and distress in reaction to news stories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.10399 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lorraine R Buis. 2008. Emotional and informational support messages in an online hospice support community. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing 26, 6 (2008), 358–367

    2008

  13. [21]

    Pete Burnap, Walter Colombo, and Jonathan Scourfield. 2015. Machine classification and analysis of suicide-related communication on twitter. In Proc. ACM conference on hypertext & social media

    2015

  14. [22]

    Rebekka Büscher, Michelle Torok, Yannik Terhorst, and Lasse Sander. 2020. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy to reduce suicidal ideation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA network open 3, 4 (2020), e203933–e203933

    2020

  15. [23]

    Johana Cabrera, M Soledad Loyola, Irene Magaña, and Rodrigo Rojas. 2023. Ethical dilemmas, mental health, artificial intelligence, and llm-based chatbots. In International Work-Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering . Springer, 313–326

    2023

  16. [24]

    Mirko Casu, Sergio Triscari, Sebastiano Battiato, Luca Guarnera, and Pasquale Caponnetto. 2024. AI Chatbots for Mental Health: A Scoping Review of Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Applications. Applied Sciences 14, 13 (2024), 5889

    2024

  17. [25]

    Kate Cavanagh, Bea Herbeck Belnap, Scott D Rothenberger, Kaleab Z Abebe, and Bruce L Rollman. 2018. My care manager, my computer therapy and me: the relationship triangle in computerized cognitive behavioural therapy. Internet interventions (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Stevie Chancellor and Munmun De Choudhury. 2020. Methods in predictive techniques for mental health status on social media: a critical review. NPJ digital medicine 3, 1 (2020), 1–11

    2020

  19. [27]

    Stevie Chancellor, Zhiyuan Lin, Erica L Goodman, Stephanie Zerwas, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2016. Quantifying and predicting mental illness severity in online pro-eating disorder communities. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & So...

    2016

  20. [28]

    Mohit Chandra, Siddharth Sriraman, Gaurav Verma, Harneet Singh Khanuja, Jose Suarez Campayo, Zihang Li, Michael L Birnbaum, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2024. Lived Experience Not Found: LLMs Struggle to Align with Experts on Addressing Adverse Drug Reactions from Psychiatric Medi...

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ya-Wen Chang, Ian Sotomayor, Erica Szkody, Kathryn R Fox, and Jessica L Schleider. 2025. Effectiveness of an Online Single-Session Minority Stress Intervention: No Evidence for Variation by Structural Stigma, Internalized Stigma, or Social Support. SSM-Mental Health (2025), 100409

    2025

  22. [30]

    Siyuan Chen, Mengyue Wu, Kenny Q Zhu, Kunyao Lan, Zhiling Zhang, and Lyuchun Cui. 2023. LLM-empowered chatbots for psychiatrist and patient simulation: application and evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13614 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Qijin Cheng, Tim MH Li, Chi-Leung Kwok, Tingshao Zhu, and Paul SF Yip. 2017. Assessing suicide risk and emotional distress in Chinese social media: a text mining and machine learning study. Journal of medical internet research 19, 7 (2017), e243

    2017

  24. [32]

    Young-Min Cho, Sunny Rai, Lyle Ungar, João Sedoc, and Sharath Chandra Guntuku. 2023. An integrative survey on mental health conversational agents to bridge computer science and medical perspectives. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proc...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Carol Chu, Jennifer M Buchman-Schmitt, Ian H Stanley, Melanie A Hom, Raymond P Tucker, Christopher R Hagan, Megan L Rogers, Matthew C Podlogar, Bruno Chiurliza, Fallon B Ringer, et al. 2017. The interpersonal theory of suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a decade...

    2017

  26. [34]

    Cindy Chung and James W Pennebaker. 2007. The psychological functions of function words. Social communication (2007), 343–359

    2007

  27. [35]

    Meri Coleman and Ta Lin Liau. 1975. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology 60, 2 (1975), 283

    1975

  28. [36]

    Katherine Anne Comtois, Karin E Hendricks, Christopher R DeCou, Samantha A Chalker, Amanda H Kerbrat, Jennifer Crumlish, Tierney K Huppert, and David Jobes. 2023. Reducing short term suicide risk after hospitalization: A randomized controlled trial of the Collaborative Assessm...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Glen Coppersmith, Kim Ngo, Ryan Leary, and Anthony Wood. 2016. Exploratory analysis of social media prior to a suicide attempt. In Proceedings of the third workshop on computational linguistics and clinical psychology . 106–117

    2016

  30. [38]

    Bruce N Cuthbert and Thomas R Insel. 2013. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC medicine 11 (2013), 1–8

    2013

  31. [39]

    Carolyn E Cutrona and Beth R Troutman. 1986. Social support, infant temperament, and parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child development (1986), 1507–1518

    1986

  32. [40]

    Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Michael Gamon, and Susan Dumais. 2011. Mark my words! Linguistic style accommodation in social media. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web . 745–754

    2011

  33. [41]

    Vedant Das Swain, Qiuyue "Joy" Zhong, Jash Rajesh Parekh, Yechan Jeon, Roy Zimmerman, Mary Czerwinski, Jina Suh, Varun Mishra, Koustuv Saha, and Javier Hernandez. 2025. AI on My Shoulder: Supporting Emotional Labor in Front-Office Roles with an LLM-based Empathetic Coworker. I...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Munmun De Choudhury. 2015. Social Media for Mental Illness Risk Assessment, Prevention and Support. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Social Media World Sensors . ACM, 1–1

    2015

  35. [43]

    Munmun De Choudhury and Sushovan De. 2014. Mental health discourse on reddit: Self-disclosure, social support, and anonymity. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 8. 71–80

    2014

  36. [44]

    Munmun De Choudhury, Michael Gamon, Scott Counts, and Eric Horvitz. 2013. Predicting depression via social media. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 7. 128–137

    2013

  37. [45]

    Munmun De Choudhury and Emre Kiciman. 2017. The language of social support in social media and its effect on suicidal ideation risk. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 11. 32–41

    2017

  38. [46]

    Munmun De Choudhury, Emre Kiciman, Mark Dredze, Glen Coppersmith, and Mrinal Kumar. 2016. Discovering shifts to suicidal ideation from mental health content in social media. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 2098–2110

    2016

  39. [47]

    Munmun De Choudhury, Sachin R Pendse, and Neha Kumar. 2023. Benefits and harms of large language models in digital mental health. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14693 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rina Dutta, George Gkotsis, Sumithra Velupillai, Ioannis Bakolis, and Robert Stewart. 2021. Temporal and diurnal variation in social media posts to a suicide support forum. BMC psychiatry 21, 1 (2021), 259

    2021

  41. [49]

    Benj Edwards. 2023. Controversy erupts over non-consensual AI mental health experiment. ARS Technica (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Jacob Eisenstein, Amr Ahmed, and Eric P Xing. 2011. Sparse additive generative models of text. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11) . 1041–1048

    2011

  43. [51]

    Elina Eriksson and Sirkka Lauri. 2000. Informational and emotional support for cancer patients’ relatives. European journal of cancer care 9, 1 (2000), 8–15

    2000

  44. [52]

    Sindhu Kiranmai Ernala, Asra F Rizvi, Michael L Birnbaum, John M Kane, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2017. Linguistic markers indicating therapeutic outcomes of social media disclosures of schizophrenia. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1–27

    2017

  45. [53]

    César G Escobar-Viera, Giovanna Porta, Robert WS Coulter, Jamie Martina, Jeremy Goldbach, and Bruce L Rollman. 2023. A chatbot-delivered intervention for optimizing social media use and reducing perceived isolation among rural-living LGBTQ+ youth: Interpersonal Theory of Suici...

    2023

  46. [54]

    ME Francis and Roger J Booth. 1993. Linguistic inquiry and word count. Southern Methodist University: Dallas, TX, USA (1993)

    1993

  47. [55]

    Joseph C Franklin, Jessica D Ribeiro, Kathryn R Fox, Kate H Bentley, Evan M Kleiman, Xieyining Huang, Katherine M Musacchio, Adam C Jaroszewski, Bernard P Chang, and Matthew K Nock. 2017. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research...

    2017

  48. [56]

    King-wa Fu, Qijin Cheng, Paul WC Wong, and Paul SF Yip. 2013. Responses to a self-presented suicide attempt in social media. Crisis (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Muskan Garg, Manas Gaur, Raxit Goswami, and Sunghwan Sohn. 2023. LOST: A Mental Health Dataset of Low Self-esteem in Reddit Posts. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) . IEEE, 3854–3859

    2023

  50. [58]

    Thomas A Glass and George L Maddox. 1992. The quality and quantity of social support: stroke recovery as psycho-social transition. Social science & medicine 34, 11 (1992), 1249–1261

    1992

  51. [59]

    Laura Grattidge, Ha Hoang, Jonathan Mond, David Lees, Denis Visentin, and Stuart Auckland. 2023. Exploring community-based suicide prevention in the context of rural Australia: a qualitative study. International journal of environmental research and public health 20, 3 (2023), 2644

    2023

  52. [60]

    Mandy M Greaves and Cass Dykeman. 2024. Linguistic Analysis of Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Reddit Posts: Implications for Family Therapy. The Family Journal (2024), 10664807241248177

    2024

  53. [61]

    Maarten Grootendorst. 2022. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Meghana Gudala, Mary Ellen Trail Ross, Sunitha Mogalla, Mandi Lyons, Padmavathy Ramaswamy, Kirk Roberts, et al. 2022. Benefits of, barriers to, and needs for an artificial intelligence–powered medication information voice chatbot for older adults: Interview study with geriatri...

    2022

  55. [63]

    Sharath Chandra Guntuku, H Andrew Schwartz, Adarsh Kashyap, Jessica S Gaulton, Daniel C Stokes, David A Asch, Lyle H Ungar, and Raina M Merchant. 2020. Variability in Language used on Social Media prior to Hospital Visits. Scientific Reports 10, 1 (2020), 1–9

    2020

  56. [64]

    Sharath Chandra Guntuku, David B Yaden, Margaret L Kern, Lyle H Ungar, and Johannes C Eichstaedt. 2017. Detecting depression and mental illness on social media: an integrative review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 18 (2017), 43–49

    2017

  57. [65]

    MD Romael Haque and Sabirat Rubya. 2023. An overview of chatbot-based mobile mental health apps: insights from app description and user reviews. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 11, 1 (2023), e44838

    2023

  58. [66]

    Bonnie Harmer, Sarah Lee, TvH Duong, and Abdolreza Saadabadi. 2021. Suicidal Ideation. StatPearls (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Ilona Herlin and Laura Visapää. 2016. Dimensions of empathy in relation to language. Nordic Journal of linguistics 39, 2 (2016), 135–157

    2016

  60. [68]

    Shaoxiong Ji, Celina Ping Yu, Sai-fu Fung, Shirui Pan, and Guodong Long. 2018. Supervised learning for suicidal ideation detection in online user content. Complexity 2018, 1 (2018), 6157249

    2018

  61. [69]

    David A Jobes and Thomas E Joiner. 2019. Reflections on Suicidal Ideation. Crisis 40, 4 (2019), 227–230

    2019

  62. [70]

    It’s a lonely disease

    Jazette Johnson, Vitica Arnold, Anne Marie Piper, and Gillian R Hayes. 2022. " It’s a lonely disease": Cultivating Online Spaces for Social Support among People Living with Dementia and Dementia Caregivers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–27

    2022

  63. [71]

    TE Joiner, Kimberly A Van Orden, Tracy K Witte, and M David Rudd. 2010. The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychological review 117, 2 (2010), 575–600

    2010

  64. [72]

    Gerald A Juhnke et al. 2007. IS PATH WARM? A suicide assessment mnemonic for counselors. (2007)

    2007

  65. [73]

    Mahammed Kamruzzaman, Md Minul Islam Shovon, and Gene Louis Kim. 2023. Investigating subtler biases in llms: Ageism, beauty, institutional, and nationality bias in generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08902 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    I Didn’t Know I Looked Angry

    Harmanpreet Kaur, Daniel McDuff, Alex C Williams, Jaime Teevan, and Shamsi T Iqbal. 2022. “I Didn’t Know I Looked Angry”: Characterizing Observed Emotion and Reported Affect at Work. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2022

  67. [75]

    Anna Kawakami, Shreya Chowdhary, Shamsi T Iqbal, Q Vera Liao, Alexandra Olteanu, Jina Suh, and Koustuv Saha. 2023. Sensing Wellbeing in the Workplace, Why and For Whom? Envisioning Impacts with Organizational Stakeholders. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (...

    2023

  68. [76]

    Meeyun Kim, Koustuv Saha, Munmun De Choudhury, and Daejin Choi. 2023. Supporters first: understanding online social support on mental health from a supporter perspective. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  69. [77]

    Jaclyn S Kirshenbaum, David Pagliaccio, Alma Bitran, Elisa Xu, and Randy P Auerbach. 2024. Why do adolescents attempt suicide? Insights from leading ideation-to-action suicide theories: a systematic review. Translational psychiatry 14, 1 (2024), 266

    2024

  70. [78]

    E David Klonsky, Alexis M May, and Boaz Y Saffer. 2016. Suicide, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation. Annual review of clinical psychology 12, 1 (2016), 307–330

    2016

  71. [79]

    E David Klonsky, Mikayla C Pachkowski, Arezoo Shahnaz, and Alexis M May. 2021. The three-step theory of suicide: Description, evidence, and some useful points of clarification. Preventive medicine 152 (2021), 106549. 28 • Shimgekar et al

    2021

  72. [80]

    E David Klonsky, Boaz Y Saffer, and Craig J Bryan. 2018. Ideation-to-action theories of suicide: a conceptual and empirical update. Current opinion in psychology 22 (2018), 38–43

    2018

  73. [81]

    Gregory G Kolden, Marjorie H Klein, Chia-Chiang Wang, and Sara B Austin. 2011. Congruence/genuineness. Psychotherapy 48, 1 (2011), 65

    2011

  74. [82]

    William Labov and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation . Academic Press

    1977

  75. [83]

    Michael J Lambert and Dean E Barley. 2001. Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy: Theory, research, practice, training 38, 4 (2001), 357

    2001

  76. [84]

    Tove Larsson and Henrik Kaatari. 2020. Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in) formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 45 (2020), 100850

    2020

  77. [85]

    Hannah R Lawrence, Renee A Schneider, Susan B Rubin, Maja J Matarić, Daniel J McDuff, and Megan Jones Bell. 2024. The opportunities and risks of large language models in mental health. JMIR Mental Health 11, 1 (2024), e59479

    2024

  78. [86]

    John H Lee, Byron R Grant, Jonathan H Chung, Ingrid Reiser, and Maryellen Giger. 2018. Assessment of diagnostic image quality of computed tomography (CT) images of the lung using deep learning. In Medical Imaging 2018: Physics of Medical Imaging , Vol. 10573

    2018

  79. [87]

    Leonidas. 2018. LonelyDataset: Are you really alone? https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nnair25/lonelydataset

    2018

  80. [88]

    Han Li, Renwen Zhang, Yi-Chieh Lee, Robert E Kraut, and David C Mohr. 2023. Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI-based conversational agents for promoting mental health and well-being. NPJ Digital Medicine 6, 1 (2023), 236

    2023

  81. [89]

    Yugang Li, Baizhou Wu, Yuqi Huang, and Shenghua Luan. 2024. Developing trustworthy artificial intelligence: insights from research on interpersonal, human-automation, and human-AI trust. Frontiers in Psychology 15 (2024), 1382693

    2024

  82. [90]

    Jingfang Liu, Mengshi Shi, and Huihong Jiang. 2022. Detecting suicidal ideation in social media: an ensemble method based on feature fusion. International journal of environmental research and public health 19, 13 (2022), 8197

    2022

  83. [91]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Susan Stewart Loane and Steven D’Alessandro. 2013. Communication that changes lives: Social support within an online health community for ALS. Communication Quarterly 61, 2 (2013), 236–251

    2013

  85. [93]

    Nathan J Lowry, Pauline Goger, Maria Hands Ruz, Fangfei Ye, and Christine B Cha. 2024. Suicide risk screening tools for pediatric patients: a systematic review of test accuracy. Pediatrics 153, 3 (2024), e2023064172

    2024

  86. [94]

    Laura Manea, Simon Gilbody, and Dean McMillan. 2015. A diagnostic meta-analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) algorithm scoring method as a screen for depression. General hospital psychiatry 37, 1 (2015), 67–75

    2015

  87. [95]

    Bethanie Maples, Merve Cerit, Aditya Vishwanath, and Roy Pea. 2024. Loneliness and suicide mitigation for students using GPT3- enabled chatbots. npj mental health research 3, 1 (2024), 4

    2024

  88. [96]

    Nicholas Mcinnes and Bo JA Haglund. 2011. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Informatics for health and social care 36, 4 (2011), 173–189

    2011

  89. [97]

    Adrian Meier and Leonard Reinecke. 2021. Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review. Communication Research 48, 8 (2021), 1182–1209

    2021

  90. [98]

    Mark Merolli, Kathleen Gray, and Fernando Martin-Sanchez. 2013. Health outcomes and related effects of using social media in chronic disease management: a literature review and analysis of affordances. Journal of biomedical informatics (2013)

    2013

  91. [99]

    Wilnellys Moore and Sarah Frye. 2019. Review of HIPAA, part 1: history, protected health information, and privacy and security rules. Journal of nuclear medicine technology 47, 4 (2019), 269–272

    2019

  92. [100]

    Drashko Nakikj and Lena Mamykina. 2017. A park or a highway: Overcoming tensions in designing for socio-emotional and informational needs in online health communities. In Proc. conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing

    2017

  93. [101]

    Matthew K Nock, Guilherme Borges, Evelyn J Bromet, Christine B Cha, Ronald C Kessler, and Sing Lee. 2008. Suicide and suicidal behavior. Epidemiologic reviews 30, 1 (2008), 133

    2008

  94. [102]

    John C Norcross and Michael J Lambert. 2018. Psychotherapy relationships that work III. Psychotherapy 55, 4 (2018), 303

    2018

  95. [103]

    Rory C O’Connor and Olivia J Kirtley. 2018. The integrated motivational–volitional model of suicidal behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373, 1754 (2018), 20170268

    2018

  96. [104]

    Bridianne O’dea, Melinda R Achilles, Mark E Larsen, Philip J Batterham, Alison L Calear, and Helen Christensen. 2018. The rate of reply and nature of responses to suicide-related posts on Twitter. Internet interventions 13 (2018), 105–107

    2018

  97. [105]

    Alexandra Olteanu, Onur Varol, and Emre Kiciman. 2017. Distilling the outcomes of personal experiences: A propensity-scored analysis of social media. In Proc. CSCW

    2017

  98. [106]

    Batyrkhan Omarov, Sergazi Narynov, and Zhandos Zhumanov. 2023. Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Chatbots in Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Computers, Materials & Continua 74, 3 (2023)

    2023

  99. [107]

    Clare E Palmer, Emily Marshall, Edward Millgate, Graham Warren, Michael P Ewbank, Elisa Cooper, Samantha Lawes, Malika Bouazzaoui, Alastair Smith, Chris Hutchins-Joss, et al. 2024. Combining AI and human support in mental health: A digital intervention with comparable effectiv...

    2024

  100. [108]

    Jinkyung Park, Vivek Singh, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2024. Toward Safe Evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based Conversational Agents to Support Adolescent Mental and Sexual Health Knowledge Discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03023 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    James W Pennebaker and Cindy K Chung. 2007. Expressive writing, emotional upheavals, and health. Handbook of health psychology (2007), 263–284

    2007

  102. [110]

    James W Pennebaker, Martha E Francis, and Roger J Booth. 2001. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 71, 2001 (2001), 2001

    2001

  103. [111]

    Kent Posner, D Brent, C Lucas, M Gould, B Stanley, G Brown, P Fisher, J Zelazny, A Burke, MJNY Oquendo, et al. 2008. Columbia-suicide severity rating scale (C-SSRS). New York, NY: Columbia University Medical Center 10 (2008), 2008

    2008

  104. [112]

    Syed Tanzeel Rabani, Akib Mohi Ud Din Khanday, Qamar Rayees Khan, Umar Ayoub Hajam, Ali Shariq Imran, and Zenun Kastrati

  105. [113]

    Diana Ramírez-Cifuentes, Ana Freire, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Joaquim Puntí, Pilar Medina-Bravo, Diego Alejandro Velazquez, Josep Maria Gonfaus, and Jordi Gonzàlez. 2020. Detection of suicidal ideation on social media: multimodal, relational, and behavioral analysis. Journal of me...

    2020

  106. [114]

    Sudha Rao and Joel Tetreault. 2018. Dear sir or madam, may I introduce the GYAFC dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.06535 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Afsaneh Razi, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2020. Let’s talk about sext: How adolescents seek support and advice about their online sexual experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2020

  108. [116]

    Navid Rekabsaz, Mihai Lupu, and Allan Hanbury. 2017. Exploration of a threshold for similarity based on uncertainty in word embedding. In European Conference on Information Retrieval . Springer, 396–409

    2017

  109. [117]

    Kimberly Roaten, Lisa M Horowitz, Jeffrey A Bridge, Christian RR Goans, Chris McKintosh, Russell Genzel, Celeste Johnson, and Carol S North. 2021. Universal pediatric suicide risk screening in a health care system: 90,000 patient encounters. Journal of the Academy of Consultat...

    2021

  110. [118]

    Kat Roemmich and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Data subjects’ conceptualizations of and attitudes toward automatic emotion recognition- enabled wellbeing interventions on social media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–34

    2021

  111. [119]

    Stuart Rose, Dave Engel, Nick Cramer, and Wendy Cowley. 2010. Automatic keyword extraction from individual documents. Text mining: applications and theory (2010), 1–20

    2010

  112. [120]

    Mehdi Rostami and Shokouh Navabinejad. 2023. Artificial Empathy: User Experiences with Emotionally Intelligent Chatbots. AI and Tech in Behavioral and Social Sciences 1, 3 (2023), 19–27

    2023

  113. [121]

    Pratik Sachdeva, Renata Barreto, Geoff Bacon, Alexander Sahn, Claudia Von Vacano, and Chris Kennedy. 2022. The measuring hate speech corpus: Leveraging rasch measurement theory for data perspectivism. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Perspectivist Approaches to NLP@ LREC2...

    2022

  114. [122]

    Koustuv Saha, Sindhu Kiranmai Ernala, Sarmistha Dutta, Eva Sharma, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2020. Understanding Moderation in Online Mental Health Communities. In HCII. Springer

    2020

  115. [123]

    Koustuv Saha, Ted Grover, Stephen M Mattingly, Vedant Das swain, Pranshu Gupta, Gonzalo J Martinez, Pablo Robles-Granda, Gloria Mark, Aaron Striegel, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2021. Person-Centered Predictions of Psychological Constructs with Social Media Contextualized by Mult...

    2021

  116. [124]

    Koustuv Saha, Yoshee Jain, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2025. Linguistic Comparison of AI-and Human-Written Responses to Online Mental Health Queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09271 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Koustuv Saha, Yoshee Jain, Chunyu Liu, Sidharth Kaliappan, and Ravi Karkar. 2025. AI vs. Humans for Online Support: Comparing the Language of Responses from LLMs and Online Communities of Alzheimer’s Disease. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (2025)

    2025

  118. [126]

    Koustuv Saha, Sang Chan Kim, Manikanta D Reddy, Albert J Carter, Eva Sharma, Oliver L Haimson, and Munmun De Choudhury

  119. [127]

    Koustuv Saha, Bhaskar Kotakonda, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2025. Mental Health Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on College Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study on Social Media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

    2025

  120. [128]

    Koustuv Saha and Amit Sharma. 2020. Causal factors of effective psychosocial outcomes in online mental health communities. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 14. 590–601

    2020

  121. [129]

    Koustuv Saha, Benjamin Sugar, John Torous, Bruno Abrahao, Emre Kıcıman, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2019. A social media study on the effects of psychiatric medication use. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

    2019

  122. [130]

    Koustuv Saha, Ingmar Weber, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2018. A Social Media Based Examination of the Effects of Counseling Recommendations After Student Deaths on College Campuses. In Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

    2018

  123. [131]

    Koustuv Saha, Asra Yousuf, Ryan L Boyd, James W Pennebaker, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2022. Social media discussions predict mental health consultations on college campuses. Scientific reports 12, 1 (2022), 123. 30 • Shimgekar et al

    2022

  124. [132]

    Tam Sakirin and Rachid Ben Said. 2023. User preferences for ChatGPT-powered conversational interfaces versus traditional methods. Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science 2023 (2023), 22–28

    2023

  125. [133]

    Ashish Sharma, Inna W Lin, Adam S Miner, David C Atkins, and Tim Althoff. 2023. Human–AI collaboration enables more empathic conversations in text-based peer-to-peer mental health support. Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 1 (2023), 46–57

    2023

  126. [134]

    Ashish Sharma, Adam Miner, David Atkins, and Tim Althoff. 2020. A Computational Approach to Understanding Empathy Expressed in Text-Based Mental Health Support. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 5263–5276

    2020

  127. [135]

    Ashish Sharma, Kevin Rushton, Inna Wanyin Lin, Theresa Nguyen, and Tim Althoff. 2024. Facilitating self-guided mental health interventions through human-language model interaction: A case study of cognitive restructuring. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Fact...

    2024

  128. [136]

    Eva Sharma and Munmun De Choudhury. 2018. Mental health support and its relationship to linguistic accommodation in online communities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2018

  129. [137]

    Ki Eun Shin, Angela Page Spears, Renjie Zhang, and Christine B Cha. 2025. Suicide-related disclosure patterns among culturally minoritized youth: Examining differences across race, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 55, 1 ...

    2025

  130. [138]

    I Cannot Do All of This Alone

    C Estelle Smith, Zachary Levonian, Haiwei Ma, Robert Giaquinto, Gemma Lein-Mcdonough, Zixuan Li, Susan O’Conner-Von, and Svetlana Yarosh. 2020. " I Cannot Do All of This Alone" Exploring Instrumental and Prayer Support in Online Health Communities. ACM Transactions on Computer...

    2020

  131. [139]

    Inhwa Song, Sachin R Pendse, Neha Kumar, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2024. The typing cure: Experiences with large language model chatbots for mental health support. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14362 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  132. [140]

    If This Person is Suicidal, What Do I Do?

    Logan Stapleton, Sunniva Liu, Cindy Liu, Irene Hong, Stevie Chancellor, Robert E Kraut, and Haiyi Zhu. 2024. " If This Person is Suicidal, What Do I Do?": Designing Computational Approaches to Help Online Volunteers Respond to Suicidality. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference ...

    2024

  133. [141]

    Julie A Suhr, Carolyn E Cutrona, Krista K Krebs, and Sandra L Jensen. 2004. The social support behavior code (SSBC). In Couple observational coding systems. Routledge, 307–318

    2004

  134. [142]

    Colm Sweeney, Courtney Potts, Edel Ennis, Raymond Bond, Maurice D Mulvenna, Siobhan O’neill, Martin Malcolm, Lauri Kuosmanen, Catrine Kostenius, Alex Vakaloudis, et al. 2021. Can chatbots help support a person’s mental health? Perceptions and views from mental healthcare profe...

    2021

  135. [143]

    Katalin Szanto, Ariel Gildengers, Benoit H Mulsant, Greg Brown, George S Alexopoulos, and Charles F Reynolds. 2002. Identification of suicidal ideation and prevention of suicidal behaviour in the elderly. Drugs & Aging 19 (2002), 11–24

    2002

  136. [144]

    Yla R Tausczik and James W Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology 29, 1 (2010), 24–54

    2010

  137. [145]

    Tobias Teismann, Thomas E Joiner, Morgan Robison, and Julia Brailovskaia. 2024. Self-Burdensomeness, Self-Esteem and Suicidal Ideation. Cognitive Therapy and Research (2024), 1–8

    2024

  138. [146]

    Anoushka Thakkar, Ankita Gupta, and Avinash De Sousa. 2024. Artificial intelligence in positive mental health: a narrative review. Frontiers in Digital Health 6 (2024), 1280235

    2024

  139. [147]

    Anja Thieme, Danielle Belgrave, and Gavin Doherty. 2020. Machine learning in mental health: A systematic review of the HCI literature to support the development of effective and implementable ML systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2020)

    2020

  140. [148]

    Crispin Thurlow, Alice Tomic, and Lara Lengel. 2004. Computer mediated communication. (2004)

    2004

  141. [149]

    Aditya Nrusimha Vaidyam, Hannah Wisniewski, John David Halamka, Matcheri S Kashavan, and John Blake Torous. 2019. Chatbots and conversational agents in mental health: a review of the psychiatric landscape. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 64, 7 (2019)

    2019

  142. [150]

    Emma L van der Schyff, Brad Ridout, Krestina L Amon, Rowena Forsyth, and Andrew J Campbell. 2023. Providing self-led mental health support through an artificial intelligence–powered chat bot (Leora) to Meet the demand of mental health care. Journal of Medical Internet Research...

    2023

  143. [151]

    Kimberly A Van Orden, Tracy K Witte, Kelly C Cukrowicz, Scott R Braithwaite, Edward A Selby, and Thomas E Joiner Jr. 2010. The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychological review 117, 2 (2010), 575

    2010

  144. [152]

    Paul Voigt and Axel Von dem Bussche. 2017. The eu general data protection regulation (gdpr). A practical guide, 1st ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing 10, 3152676 (2017), 10–5555

    2017

  145. [153]

    David Wadden, Tal August, Qisheng Li, and Tim Althoff. 2021. The effect of moderation on online mental health conversations. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 15. 751–763

    2021

  146. [154]

    Alex Walker, Ayah Zirikly, Melissa Stockbridge, and Holly C Wilcox. 2023. A linguistic analysis of Instagram captions between adolescent suicide decedents and living controls. Crisis (2023)

    2023

  147. [155]

    Tony Wang, Haard K Shah, Raj Sanjay Shah, Yi-Chia Wang, Robert E Kraut, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Metrics for peer counseling: triangulating success outcomes for online therapy platforms. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17. Interpe...

    2023

  148. [156]

    Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 5776–5788

    2020

  149. [157]

    WHO. 2023. Suicide. World Health Organization (2023)

    2023

  150. [158]

    Kelly Wong, Christian S Chan, Milton Chan, Clifford Wong, Qijin Cheng, Cynthia Xiong, and Paul Yip. 2021. Who seeks help online? Comparing online and offline help-seeking preferences amongst youths with suicidal ideation.Journal of Affective Disorders 292 (2021)

    2021

  151. [159]

    Lu Xu, Leslie Sanders, Kay Li, James CL Chow, et al. 2021. Chatbot for health care and oncology applications using artificial intelligence and machine learning: systematic review. JMIR cancer 7, 4 (2021), e27850

    2021

  152. [160]

    Yifei Yan, Jun Li, Xingyun Liu, Qing Li, and Nancy Xiaonan Yu. 2024. Identifying Reddit Users at a High Risk of Suicide and Their Linguistic Features During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Growth-Based Trajectory Model. Journal of Medical Internet Research 26 (2024)

    2024

  153. [161]

    Diyi Yang, Zheng Yao, Joseph Seering, and Robert Kraut. 2019. The channel matters: Self-disclosure, reciprocity and social support in online cancer support groups. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–15

    2019

  154. [162]

    Ningxi Yang, Yuting Zhang, Zhibo Liu, Fang Wang, Guoqing Yang, and Xiuying Hu. 2022. Influence of social workers’ empathy ability on suicidal ideation of cancer patients. Frontiers in public health 10 (2022), 925307

    2022

  155. [163]

    Eldar Yeskuatov, Sook-Ling Chua, and Lee Kien Foo. 2024. Detecting Suicidal Ideations in Online Forums with Textual and Psycholin- guistic Features. Applied Sciences 14, 21 (2024), 9911

    2024

  156. [164]

    Renwen Zhang, Han Li, Han Meng, Jinyuan Zhan, Hongyuan Gan, and Yi-Chieh Lee. 2024. The Dark Side of AI Companionship: A Taxonomy of Harmful Algorithmic Behaviors in Human-AI Relationships. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20130 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  157. [165]

    Jiawei Zhou, Koustuv Saha, Irene Michelle Lopez Carron, Dong Whi Yoo, Catherine R Deeter, Munmun De Choudhury, and Rosa I Arriaga. 2022. Veteran Critical Theory as a Lens to Understand Veterans’ Needs and Support on Social Media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Intera...

    2022

  158. [166]

    Mi Zhou, Vibhanshu Abhishek, Timothy Derdenger, Jaymo Kim, and Kannan Srinivasan. 2024. Bias in generative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02726 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  159. [2019]

    Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–22

    The language of LGBTQ+ minority stress experiences on social media. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–22

    2019

  160. [2023]

    Egyptian Informatics Journal 24, 2 (2023), 291–302

    Detecting suicidality on social media: Machine learning at rescue. Egyptian Informatics Journal 24, 2 (2023), 291–302

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.