A Cross Attention Approach to Diagnostic Explainability Using Clinical Practice Guidelines for Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of explainability in using relevant clinical knowledge hinders the adoption of artificial intelligence-powered analysis of unstructured clinical dialogue. A wealth of relevant, untapped Mental Health (MH) data is available in online communities, providing the opportunity to address the explainability problem with substantial potential impact as a screening tool for both online and offline applications. Inspired by how clinicians rely on their expertise when interacting with patients, we leverage relevant clinical knowledge to classify and explain depression-related data, reducing manual review time and engendering trust. We developed a method to enhance attention in contemporary transformer models and generate explanations for classifications that are understandable by mental health practitioners (MHPs) by incorporating external clinical knowledge. We propose a domain-general architecture called ProcesS knowledgeinfused cross ATtention (PSAT) that incorporates clinical practice guidelines (CPG) when computing attention. We transform a CPG resource focused on depression, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire (e.g. PHQ-9) and related questions, into a machine-readable ontology using SNOMED-CT. With this resource, PSAT enhances the ability of models like GPT-3.5 to generate application-relevant explanations. Evaluation of four expert-curated datasets related to depression demonstrates PSAT's applicationrelevant explanations. PSAT surpasses the performance of twelve baseline models and can provide explanations where other baselines fall short.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".