MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394807094 · doi:10.2196/53778

Generation of Backward-Looking Complex Reflections for a Motivational Interviewing–Based Smoking Cessation Chatbot Using GPT-4: Algorithm Development and Validation

2024· article· en· W4394807094 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ash Tanuj Kumar, Cindy Wang, Alec Dong, Jonathan Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatbotConversationSession (web analytics)Motivational interviewingComputer scienceProcess (computing)PsychologyArtificial intelligencePsychological interventionWorld Wide WebCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Motivational interviewing (MI) is a therapeutic technique that has been successful in helping smokers reduce smoking but has limited accessibility due to the high cost and low availability of clinicians. To address this, the MIBot project has sought to develop a chatbot that emulates an MI session with a client with the specific goal of moving an ambivalent smoker toward the direction of quitting. One key element of an MI conversation is reflective listening, where a therapist expresses their understanding of what the client has said by uttering a reflection that encourages the client to continue their thought process. Complex reflections link the client's responses to relevant ideas and facts to enhance this contemplation. Backward-looking complex reflections (BLCRs) link the client's most recent response to a relevant selection of the client's previous statements. Our current chatbot can generate complex reflections-but not BLCRs-using large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-2, which allows the generation of unique, human-like messages customized to client responses. Recent advancements in these models, such as the introduction of GPT-4, provide a novel way to generate complex text by feeding the models instructions and conversational history directly, making this a promising approach to generate BLCRs. Objective: This study aims to develop a method to generate BLCRs for an MI-based smoking cessation chatbot and to measure the method's effectiveness. Methods: LLMs such as GPT-4 can be stimulated to produce specific types of responses to their inputs by "asking" them with an English-based description of the desired output. These descriptions are called prompts, and the goal of writing a description that causes an LLM to generate the required output is termed prompt engineering. We evolved an instruction to prompt GPT-4 to generate a BLCR, given the portions of the transcript of the conversation up to the point where the reflection was needed. The approach was tested on 50 previously collected MIBot transcripts of conversations with smokers and was used to generate a total of 150 reflections. The quality of the reflections was rated on a 4-point scale by 3 independent raters to determine whether they met specific criteria for acceptability. Results: Of the 150 generated reflections, 132 (88%) met the level of acceptability. The remaining 18 (12%) had one or more flaws that made them inappropriate as BLCRs. The 3 raters had pairwise agreement on 80% to 88% of these scores. Conclusions: The method presented to generate BLCRs is good enough to be used as one source of reflections in an MI-style conversation but would need an automatic checker to eliminate the unacceptable ones. This work illustrates the power of the new LLMs to generate therapeutic client-specific responses under the command of a language-based specification.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.285
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207