ArticleExpert systems with applications2025
A Two-Stage Proactive Dialogue Generator for Efficient Clinical Information Collection Using Large Language Model.
Article in Expert systems with applications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A comprehensive survey of AI agents in healthcare.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Efficient patient-doctor interaction is among the key factors for a successful disease diagnosis. During the conversation, the doctor could query complementary diagnostic information, such as the patient's symptoms, previous surgery, and other related information that goes beyond medical evidence data (test results) to enhance disease diagnosis. However, this procedure is usually time-consuming and less-efficient, which can be potentially optimized through computer-assisted systems. As such, we propose a diagnostic dialogue system to automate the patient information collection procedure. By exploiting medical history and conversation logic, our conversation agents, particularly the doctor agent, can pose multi-round clinical queries to effectively collect the most relevant disease diagnostic information. Moreover, benefiting from our two-stage recommendation structure, carefully designed ranking criteria, and interactive patient agent, our model is able to overcome the under-exploration and non-flexible challenges in dialogue generation. Our experiment results in a real-world medical conversation dataset with better performance than biomedical language model-based and Deepseek-based approaches. Our experiments show that we can generate clinical queries that mimic the conversation style of real doctors, with efficient fluency, professionalism, and safety, while effectively collecting relevant disease information.
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.