ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
eCBT-I dialogue system: a comparative evaluation of large language models and adaptation strategies for insomnia treatment.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional face-to-face mental health treatments are often limited by time and space. Thanks to the development of advanced large language models (LLMs), digital mental health treatments can provide personalized advice to patients and improve compliance. However, in the field of CBT-I, specialized, real-time interactive dialogue platforms have not been fully developed.
methodsOur research team construct an eCBT-I intelligent dialogue system based on the RAG architecture, aiming to provide an example of the deep integration of CBT-I knowledge graphs and large language models. Furthermore, in order to optimize the performance of the system's core language generation module on the insomnia dialogue dataset, we systematically include eight mainstream large language models (ChatGLM2-6b, ChatGLM3-6b, Baichuan-7b, Baichuan-13b, Qwen-7b, Qwen2-7b, Llama-2-7b-chat-hf, and Llama-2-13b-chat-hf) and three adaptation strategies (LoRA, QLoRA, and Freeze). We screen the suitability of the three adaptation strategies for the eight major language models in the group, and thus determine the best adaptation method for each language model to maximize performance improvement. The eight best-adapted language models are then evaluated in three dimensions to compare their performance on the small sample sleep dialogue dataset and the C-eval dataset. All subjects that evaluated under experimental conditions are historical medical records and patients who did not exhibit delirium and had normal language expression abilities.
resultsThrough the matching of model characteristics to adaptation strategies and the horizontal evaluation of multiple models, we compare the contribution of different fine-tuning strategies to the performance improvement of different language models on the small insomnia dialogue dataset, and finally determine that Qwen2-7b (Freeze) is the model with the best performance on the insomnia dialogue dataset.
conclusionsThis study effectively integrates the CBT-I knowledge graph with the large language model through the RAG architecture, which improves the professionalism of the eCBT-I intelligent dialogue system. The systematic fine-tuning method selection process and the confirmation of the optimal model not only improve the adaptability of the large language model in the CBT-I task, but also provide a useful paradigm for AI applications in medical subfields with resource constraints and difficulties in data collection, laying a solid foundation for more accurate and efficient digital CBT-I clinical practice in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.