HealthQ: Unveiling questioning capabilities of LLM chains in healthcare conversations

Q2 Health Professions
Ziyu Wang , Hao Li , Di Huang , Hye-Sung Kim , Chae-Won Shin , Amir M. Rahmani
{"title":"HealthQ: Unveiling questioning capabilities of LLM chains in healthcare conversations","authors":"Ziyu Wang ,&nbsp;Hao Li ,&nbsp;Di Huang ,&nbsp;Hye-Sung Kim ,&nbsp;Chae-Won Shin ,&nbsp;Amir M. Rahmani","doi":"10.1016/j.smhl.2025.100570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Effective patient care in digital healthcare requires large language models (LLMs) that not only answer questions but also actively gather critical information through well-crafted inquiries. This paper introduces HealthQ, a novel framework for evaluating the questioning capabilities of LLM healthcare chains. By implementing advanced LLM chains, including Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), Chain of Thought (CoT), and reflective chains, HealthQ assesses how effectively these chains elicit comprehensive and relevant patient information. To achieve this, we integrate an LLM judge to evaluate generated questions across metrics such as specificity, relevance, and usefulness, while aligning these evaluations with traditional Natural Language Processing (NLP) metrics like ROUGE and Named Entity Recognition (NER)-based set comparisons. We validate HealthQ using two custom datasets constructed from public medical datasets, ChatDoctor and MTS-Dialog, and demonstrate its robustness across multiple LLM judge models, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Claude. Our contributions are threefold: we present the first systematic framework for assessing questioning capabilities in healthcare conversations, establish a model-agnostic evaluation methodology, and provide empirical evidence linking high-quality questions to improved patient information elicitation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37151,"journal":{"name":"Smart Health","volume":"36 ","pages":"Article 100570"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Smart Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352648325000315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Effective patient care in digital healthcare requires large language models (LLMs) that not only answer questions but also actively gather critical information through well-crafted inquiries. This paper introduces HealthQ, a novel framework for evaluating the questioning capabilities of LLM healthcare chains. By implementing advanced LLM chains, including Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), Chain of Thought (CoT), and reflective chains, HealthQ assesses how effectively these chains elicit comprehensive and relevant patient information. To achieve this, we integrate an LLM judge to evaluate generated questions across metrics such as specificity, relevance, and usefulness, while aligning these evaluations with traditional Natural Language Processing (NLP) metrics like ROUGE and Named Entity Recognition (NER)-based set comparisons. We validate HealthQ using two custom datasets constructed from public medical datasets, ChatDoctor and MTS-Dialog, and demonstrate its robustness across multiple LLM judge models, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Claude. Our contributions are threefold: we present the first systematic framework for assessing questioning capabilities in healthcare conversations, establish a model-agnostic evaluation methodology, and provide empirical evidence linking high-quality questions to improved patient information elicitation.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Smart Health
Smart Health Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
81
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信