Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a self-evolving annotation framework for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) that integrates large language model (LLM) assistance with expert verification to enhance the quality of depression symptom annotations. By aligning annotations with the DSM-5-TR criteria and employing a dual-memory architecture, the framework iteratively improves labeling accuracy and transparency while providing comprehensive audit trails. The pilot study demonstrates that this approach significantly enhances annotation consistency and reduces the manual effort required for revisions, addressing a critical bottleneck in explainable AI for mental health research.
Expert-verified annotations for depression symptoms can now evolve autonomously, improving consistency and transparency in mental health AI systems.
Annotation quality is a major bottleneck in building reliable and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) systems for mental health research. In depression-related datasets, labels are often assigned without structured evidence, symptom-level justification, or traceable alignment with the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), limiting both transparency and downstream model interpretability. We propose a self-evolving, expert-in-the-loop annotation framework for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) that combines large language model (LLM)-assisted labeling with expert verification. The framework is intended to support the construction of explainable, DSM-5-TR-aligned datasets rather than to perform clinical diagnosis. It operates in three stages: candidate evidence selection from textual records, criterion-level DSM-5-TR analysis, and case-level synthesis that produces label-level diagnostic and severity annotations. A dual-memory architecture, composed of Example Memory and Reflection Memory, is designed to internalize expert feedback and iteratively improve future annotations without retraining. We describe this mechanism and leave its evaluation across multiple feedback cycles to future work. In addition to final labels, the framework exports clinical evidence, reasoning traces, and edit histories, enabling comprehensive auditability. In a pilot study using expert-reviewed samples, the proposed approach improves annotation consistency and explainability while reducing manual revision effort.
