MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413196475 · doi:10.2196/78082

Preprocessing Large-Scale Conversational Datasets: A Framework and Its Application to Behavioral Health Transcripts

2025· article· en· W4413196475 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paz Mor Naim, Shiri Sadeh‐Sharvit, Samuel Jefroykin, Eddie Silber, Ariel Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintScale (ratio)PreprocessorComputer scienceComputational biologyNatural language processingPsychologyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebBiologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The rise of artificial intelligence and accessible audio equipment has led to a proliferation of recorded conversation transcripts datasets across various fields. However, automatic mass recording and transcription often produce noisy, unstructured data that contain unintended recordings such as hallway conversations, media (eg, TV, radio), or transcription inaccuracies as speaker misattribution or misidentified words. As a result, large conversational transcript datasets require careful preprocessing and filtering to ensure their research utility. This challenge is particularly relevant in behavioral health contexts (eg, therapy, counseling) where deriving meaningful insights, specifically dynamic processes, depends on accurate conversation representation. Objective: We present a framework for preprocessing large datasets of conversational transcripts and filtering out non-sessions-transcripts that do not reflect a behavioral treatment session but instead capture unrelated conversations or background noise. This framework is applied to a large dataset of behavioral health transcripts from community mental health clinics across the United States. Methods: Our approach integrated basic feature extraction, human annotation, and advanced applications of large language models (LLMs). We began by mapping transcription errors and assessing the number of non-sessions. Next, we extracted statistical and structural features to characterize transcripts and detect outliers. Notably, we used LLM perplexity as a measure of comprehensibility to assess transcript noise levels. Finally, we used zero-shot prompting with an LLM to classify transcripts as sessions or non-sessions, validating its output against expert annotations. Throughout, we prioritized data security by selecting tools that preserve anonymity and minimize the risk of data breaches. Results: Initial assessment revealed that transcription errors-such as incomprehensible segments, unusually short transcripts, and speaker diarization issues-were present in approximately one-third (n=36 out of 100) of a manually reviewed sample. Statistical outliers revealed that high speaking rate (>3.5 words per second) is associated with short transcripts and answering machine messages, while short conversation duration (<15 min) was an indicator for case management sessions. The 75th percentile of LLM perplexity scores was significantly higher in non-sessions than sessions (permutation test mean difference = -258, P =.02), although this feature alone offered only moderate classification performance (precision =0.63, recall =0.23 after outlier removal). In contrast, zero-shot LLM prompting effectively distinguished sessions from non-sessions with high agreement to expert ratings (κ=0.71) while also capturing the nature of the meeting. Conclusions: This study's hybrid approach effectively characterizes errors, evaluates content, and distinguishes text types within unstructured conversational dataset. It provides a foundation for research on conversational data, key methods, and practical guidelines that serve as crucial first steps in ensuring data quality and usability, particularly in the context of mental health sessions. We highlight the importance of integrating clinical experts with artificial intelligence tools while prioritizing data security throughout the process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.439 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207