ArticleBehavior research methods2024
A natural language model to automate scoring of autobiographical memories.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remembering the bad times: Autobiographical memory fluency, specificity, and fading affect bias in adolescents at clinical risk of affective disorder.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026Article
- Can large language models code meaning-making? A multi-model validation of automated autobiographical reasoning scoring in Chinese adolescent narratives.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Natural language processing captures memory content associated with shared neural patterns at encoding and retrieval.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Modeling memories, predicting prospections: Automated scoring of autobiographical detail narration using large language models.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Assessing autobiographical memory consistency: Machine and human approaches.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biases in the retrieval of personal, autobiographical memories are a core feature of multiple mental health disorders, and are associated with poor clinical prognosis. However, current assessments of memory bias are either reliant on human scoring, restricting their administration in clinical settings, or when computerized, are only able to identify one memory type. Here, we developed a natural language model able to classify text-based memories as one of five different autobiographical memory types (specific, categoric, extended, semantic associate, omission), allowing easy assessment of a wider range of memory biases, including reduced memory specificity and impaired memory flexibility. Our model was trained on 17,632 text-based, human-scored memories obtained from individuals with and without experience of memory bias and mental health challenges, which was then tested on a dataset of 5880 memories. We used 20-fold cross-validation setup, and the model was fine-tuned over BERT. Relative to benchmarking and an existing support vector model, our model achieved high accuracy (95.7%) and precision (91.0%). We provide an open-source version of the model which is able to be used without further coding, by those with no coding experience, to facilitate the assessment of autobiographical memory bias in clinical settings, and aid implementation of memory-based interventions within treatment services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.