conversational artificial intelligence

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    患者关注清单(PCI)允许患者在门诊咨询中突出他们想要讨论的问题。它改善了患者与临床医生的沟通,并已证明了益处。虽然PCI是有效的,患者体验可以通过更好地获取它以及更容易和频繁地表达他们的担忧的能力来改善。这个,当然,在医疗保健挑战不断增加和资源有限的背景下。使用对话式人工智能(CAI)代表了改善患者与远离会诊的专业人员之间信息流的机会。本文强调了CAI提供“永远在线”平台的潜力,使用自然语言接口技术并基于PCI,患者可以通过其移动设备访问。我们还讨论了潜在的陷阱和担忧,同时概述了当前的临床试验评估,首先,这项技术的可用性。
    The patient concerns inventory (PCI) allows patients to highlight the issues they would like to discuss at their outpatient consultation. It improves patient-clinician communication and has proven benefits. While the PCI is effective, patient experiences could be improved with better access to it and the ability to more easily and frequently express their concerns. This, of course, is in the context of ever-increasing healthcare challenges and limited resources. Use of conversational artificial intelligence (CAI) represents an opportunity to improve information flow between patients and professionals remote from the consultation. This paper highlights the potential for CAI to provide an \'always-on\' platform, using natural language interface technology and based on the PCI, which patients can access via their mobile devices. We also discuss potential pitfalls and concerns, along with outlining a current clinical trial assessing, in the first instance, usability of this technology.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    全球,数百万人患有白内障,损害视力和生活质量。白内障教育改善结果,满意,和治疗依从性。缺乏健康素养,语言和文化障碍,个人喜好,有限的资源都可能阻碍有效的沟通。
    AI可以通过提供个性化、互动式,和为患者理解量身定制的可访问信息,兴趣,和动机。AI聊天机器人可以进行类似人类的对话,并就许多主题提供建议。
    这项研究调查了聊天机器人在白内障患者教育中相对于AAO网站等传统资源的功效,注重信息准确性,可理解性,可操作性,和可读性。描述性比较设计用于分析ChatGPT回答的有关白内障的常见问题的定量数据,巴德,BingAI,和AAO网站。SOLO分类法,PEMAT,Flesch-Kincaid缓解评分用于收集和分析数据.
    Chatbots在白内障相关问题上的准确性高于AAO网站(平均SOLO评分ChatGPT:3.1±0.31,Bard:2.9±0.72,BingAI:2.65±0.49,AAO网站:2.4±0.6,(p<0.001))。对于可理解性(平均PEMAT-U评分AAO网站:0,89±0,04,ChatGPT0,84±0,02,Bard:0,84±0,02,BingAI:0,81±0,02,(p<0.001)),和可操作性(平均PEMAT-A得分ChatGPT:0.86±0.03,Bard:0.85±0.06,BingAI:0.81±0.05,AAO网站:0.81±0.06,(p<0.001))AAO网站得分优于聊天机器人。Flesch-Kincaid可读性分析显示,Bard(55,5±8,48)的平均得分最高,其次是AAO网站(51,96±12,46),BingAI(41,77±9,53),和ChatGPT(34,38±9,75,(p<0.001))。
    聊天机器人有可能提供比AAO网站更详细,更准确的数据。另一方面,AAO网站的优势是提供更易于理解和实用的信息。如果不考虑患者的偏好,泛化或有偏差的信息会降低可靠性。
    UNASSIGNED: Worldwide, millions suffer from cataracts, which impair vision and quality of life. Cataract education improves outcomes, satisfaction, and treatment adherence. Lack of health literacy, language and cultural barriers, personal preferences, and limited resources may all impede effective communication.
    UNASSIGNED: AI can improve patient education by providing personalised, interactive, and accessible information tailored to patient understanding, interest, and motivation. AI chatbots can have human-like conversations and give advice on numerous topics.
    UNASSIGNED: This study investigated the efficacy of chatbots in cataract patient education relative to traditional resources like the AAO website, focusing on information accuracy,understandability, actionability, and readability. A descriptive comparative design was used to analyse quantitative data from frequently asked questions about cataracts answered by ChatGPT, Bard, Bing AI, and the AAO website. SOLO taxonomy, PEMAT, and the Flesch-Kincaid ease score were used to collect and analyse the data.
    UNASSIGNED: Chatbots scored higher than AAO website on cataract-related questions in terms of accuracy (mean SOLO score ChatGPT: 3.1 ± 0.31, Bard: 2.9 ± 0.72, Bing AI: 2.65 ± 0.49, AAO website: 2.4 ± 0.6, (p < 0.001)). For understandability (mean PEMAT-U score AAO website: 0,89 ± 0,04, ChatGPT 0,84 ± 0,02, Bard: 0,84 ± 0,02, Bing AI: 0,81 ± 0,02, (p < 0.001)), and actionability (mean PEMAT-A score ChatGPT: 0.86 ± 0.03, Bard: 0.85 ± 0.06, Bing AI: 0.81 ± 0.05, AAO website: 0.81 ± 0.06, (p < 0.001)) AAO website scored better than chatbots. Flesch-Kincaid readability ease analysis showed that Bard (55,5 ± 8,48) had the highest mean score, followed by AAO website (51,96 ± 12,46), Bing AI (41,77 ± 9,53), and ChatGPT (34,38 ± 9,75, (p < 0.001)).
    UNASSIGNED: Chatbots have the potential to provide more detailed and accurate data than the AAO website. On the other hand, the AAO website has the advantage of providing information that is more understandable and practical. When patient preferences are not taken into account, generalised or biased information can decrease reliability.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:建议对高血压患者进行家庭血压(BP)监测;但是,荟萃分析表明,BP的改善与额外的教练支持以及自我监测有关,只有自我监控的影响很小或没有。高接触教练需要大量资源,并且可能难以通过人工教练模型来提供。
    目的:这项观察性研究评估了在人工智能(AI)指导下参与名为Lark高血压护理的全数字化计划后血压和体重的变化。
    方法:参与者(N=864)的基线收缩压(SBP)≥120mmHg,提供他们的基线体重,并且已经达到了他们在该计划中的第三个月。主要结果是3个月和6个月时SBP的变化,次要结果是体重变化以及SBP和体重变化与参与者人口统计学的关联,特点,和项目参与。
    结果:到第3个月,与基线相比,平均SBP显著下降-5.4mmHg(95%CI-6.5至-4.3;P<.001)。血压没有显著变化(即,对于在两个时间点提供读数的参与者,SBP下降保持)从3到6个月(P=.49)。一半的参与者在第3个月(178/349,51.0%)和第6个月(98/199,49.2%)达到了临床意义的下降≥5mmHg。下降的幅度取决于开始SBP。被分类为高血压2期的参与者到第3个月时SBP的平均下降幅度最大,为-12.4mmHg(SE1.2mmHg),到第6个月时为-13.0mmHg(SE1.6mmHg);被分类为高血压1期的参与者到第3个月时降低了-5.2mmHg(SE0.8mmHg),到第6个月时降低了-7.3mmHg(SE1.3mmHg);起始SBP(β=.11;P<.001),重量百分比变化(β=-.36;P=.02),和初始BMI(β=-.56;P<.001)与3个月时SBP降低≥5mmHg的可能性显着相关。体重百分比变化是计划参与度与SBP下降之间关系的中介。引导非标准化间接效应为-0.0024(95%CI-0.0052至0;P=0.002)。
    结论:由AI指导的高血压护理计划与参与计划3和6个月后SBP的临床意义降低相关。体重变化百分比与SBP下降≥5mmHg的可能性显着相关。AI驱动的解决方案可能提供一种可扩展的方法,帮助高血压患者通过健康的生活方式改变,如减肥,实现有临床意义的血压降低,心血管疾病和其他严重不良后果的相关风险。
    BACKGROUND: Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended for people with hypertension; however, meta-analyses have demonstrated that BP improvements are related to additional coaching support in combination with self-monitoring, with little or no effect of self-monitoring alone. High-contact coaching requires substantial resources and may be difficult to deliver via human coaching models.
    OBJECTIVE: This observational study assessed changes in BP and body weight following participation in a fully digital program called Lark Hypertension Care with coaching powered by artificial intelligence (AI).
    METHODS: Participants (N=864) had a baseline systolic BP (SBP) ≥120 mm Hg, provided their baseline body weight, and had reached at least their third month in the program. The primary outcome was the change in SBP at 3 and 6 months, with secondary outcomes of change in body weight and associations of changes in SBP and body weight with participant demographics, characteristics, and program engagement.
    RESULTS: By month 3, there was a significant drop of -5.4 mm Hg (95% CI -6.5 to -4.3; P<.001) in mean SBP from baseline. BP did not change significantly (ie, the SBP drop maintained) from 3 to 6 months for participants who provided readings at both time points (P=.49). Half of the participants achieved a clinically meaningful drop of ≥5 mm Hg by month 3 (178/349, 51.0%) and month 6 (98/199, 49.2%). The magnitude of the drop depended on starting SBP. Participants classified as hypertension stage 2 had the largest mean drop in SBP of -12.4 mm Hg (SE 1.2 mm Hg) by month 3 and -13.0 mm Hg (SE 1.6 mm Hg) by month 6; participants classified as hypertension stage 1 lowered by -5.2 mm Hg (SE 0.8) mm Hg by month 3 and -7.3 mm Hg (SE 1.3 mm Hg) by month 6; participants classified as elevated lowered by -1.1 mm Hg (SE 0.7 mm Hg) by month 3 but did not drop by month 6. Starting SBP (β=.11; P<.001), percent weight change (β=-.36; P=.02), and initial BMI (β=-.56; P<.001) were significantly associated with the likelihood of lowering SBP ≥5 mm Hg by month 3. Percent weight change acted as a mediator of the relationship between program engagement and drop in SBP. The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect was -0.0024 (95% CI -0.0052 to 0; P=.002).
    CONCLUSIONS: A hypertension care program with coaching powered by AI was associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SBP following 3 and 6 months of program participation. Percent weight change was significantly associated with the likelihood of achieving a ≥5 mm Hg drop in SBP. An AI-powered solution may offer a scalable approach to helping individuals with hypertension achieve clinically meaningful reductions in their BP and associated risk of cardiovascular disease and other serious adverse outcomes via healthy lifestyle changes such as weight loss.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:虽然心理健康应用程序越来越多地适用于大量用户,缺乏关于此类应用影响的对照试验.在帮助患有认知障碍的成年人时,已经评估了人工智能(AI)授权的代理人;然而,对于仍在积极工作的老年人,很少有应用程序可用。这些成年人经常有与工作场所变化有关的高压力水平,和相关症状最终影响他们的生活质量。
    目标:我们旨在评估TEO(治疗授权机会)的贡献,具有对话式AI的移动个人医疗保健代理。TEO通过让患者参与对话来回忆增加他们焦虑的事件的细节,并通过提供治疗练习和建议来促进心理健康和福祉。
    方法:该研究基于对压力和焦虑管理的规范干预。有压力症状和轻度至中度焦虑的参与者接受了为期8周的远程认知行为疗法(CBT)干预。一组参与者也与代理TEO进行了交互。参与者是55岁以上的活跃工人。实验组如下:第1组,传统疗法;第2组,传统疗法和移动健康(mHealth)代理;第3组,mHealth代理;第4组,不进行治疗(分配到等待列表)。与压力有关的症状(焦虑,身体疾病,和抑郁)在治疗前进行评估(T1),在结束(T2),治疗后3个月(T3),使用标准化的心理问卷。此外,患者健康问卷-8和一般焦虑障碍-7量表在干预前(T1),在中期(T2),在干预结束时(T3),3个月后(T4)。在干预结束时,第1,2和3组的参与者填写了满意度问卷.
    结果:尽管随机化,两组在T1时存在统计学上的显著差异.与第1组相比,第4组的焦虑和抑郁水平较低,与第2组相比,压力水平较低。在T2和T3时,组间的比较结果没有显着差异。在组内进行的分析显示,第2组的时间之间存在显着差异,压力水平和与总体幸福感相关的得分有了更大的改善。在所有组中检测到T2和T3之间的总体恶化趋势,第2组的压力水平显着增加。第2组报告的感知有用性和满意度较高。
    结论:单独使用mHealth应用程序或在传统CBT环境中使用mHealth应用程序的参与者之间没有观察到统计学上的显着差异。然而,结果表明,在接受治疗的组中存在显着差异,并且有稳定的改善趋势,这仅限于个体对压力相关症状的看法。
    背景:ClinicalTrials.govNCT04809090;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04809090。
    BACKGROUND: While mental health applications are increasingly becoming available for large populations of users, there is a lack of controlled trials on the impacts of such applications. Artificial intelligence (AI)-empowered agents have been evaluated when assisting adults with cognitive impairments; however, few applications are available for aging adults who are still actively working. These adults often have high stress levels related to changes in their work places, and related symptoms eventually affect their quality of life.
    OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the contribution of TEO (Therapy Empowerment Opportunity), a mobile personal health care agent with conversational AI. TEO promotes mental health and well-being by engaging patients in conversations to recollect the details of events that increased their anxiety and by providing therapeutic exercises and suggestions.
    METHODS: The study was based on a protocolized intervention for stress and anxiety management. Participants with stress symptoms and mild-to-moderate anxiety received an 8-week cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention delivered remotely. A group of participants also interacted with the agent TEO. The participants were active workers aged over 55 years. The experimental groups were as follows: group 1, traditional therapy; group 2, traditional therapy and mobile health (mHealth) agent; group 3, mHealth agent; and group 4, no treatment (assigned to a waiting list). Symptoms related to stress (anxiety, physical disease, and depression) were assessed prior to treatment (T1), at the end (T2), and 3 months after treatment (T3), using standardized psychological questionnaires. Moreover, the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 and General Anxiety Disorders-7 scales were administered before the intervention (T1), at mid-term (T2), at the end of the intervention (T3), and after 3 months (T4). At the end of the intervention, participants in groups 1, 2, and 3 filled in a satisfaction questionnaire.
    RESULTS: Despite randomization, statistically significant differences between groups were present at T1. Group 4 showed lower levels of anxiety and depression compared with group 1, and lower levels of stress compared with group 2. Comparisons between groups at T2 and T3 did not show significant differences in outcomes. Analyses conducted within groups showed significant differences between times in group 2, with greater improvements in the levels of stress and scores related to overall well-being. A general worsening trend between T2 and T3 was detected in all groups, with a significant increase in stress levels in group 2. Group 2 reported higher levels of perceived usefulness and satisfaction.
    CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences could be observed between participants who used the mHealth app alone or within the traditional CBT setting. However, the results indicated significant differences within the groups that received treatment and a stable tendency toward improvement, which was limited to individual perceptions of stress-related symptoms.
    BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04809090; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04809090.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:我们的研究目的是开发一种用于脊柱疾病患者疼痛问卷的口语对话系统(SDS)。我们评估了用户满意度,并验证了SDS在医务人员和患者中的性能准确性。
    方法:在疼痛问卷的基础上,建立SDS调查脊柱疾病患者的疼痛及相关心理问题。我们认识到病人的各种答案,总结了重要信息,并记录了它们。在30名SDS潜在用户中评估了用户满意度和性能准确性,包括医生,护士,和患者进行统计分析。
    结果:30例患者的总体满意度评分为5.5±1.4,共7分。医生满意度评分为5.3±0.8,护士6.0±0.6,患者为5.3±0.5。在性能准确性方面,同一问题的重复次数为13、16和33(13.5%,16.8%,和34.7%)的医生,护士,和病人,分别。SDS汇总评论中的错误数为5、0和11(5.2%,0.0%,和11.6%),分别。总结遗漏的数量分别为7、5和7(7.3%,5.3%,和7.4%),分别。
    结论:这是第一项针对脊柱疼痛问卷开发基于语音的会话人工智能(AI)的研究,并由医务人员和患者进行了验证。对话式AI在用户满意度和性能准确性方面显示出良好的结果。对话AI可用于诊断和远程监测各种患者以及未来的疼痛问卷。
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study is to develop a spoken dialogue system (SDS) for pain questionnaire in patients with spinal disease. We evaluate user satisfaction and validated the performance accuracy of the SDS in medical staff and patients.
    METHODS: The SDS was developed to investigate pain and related psychological issues in patients with spinal diseases based on the pain questionnaire protocol. We recognized patients\' various answers, summarized important information, and documented them. User satisfaction and performance accuracy were evaluated in 30 potential users of SDS, including doctors, nurses, and patients and statistically analyzed.
    RESULTS: The overall satisfaction score of 30 patients was 5.5 ± 1.4 out of 7 points. Satisfaction scores were 5.3 ± 0.8 for doctors, 6.0 ± 0.6 for nurses, and 5.3 ± 0.5 for patients. In terms of performance accuracy, the number of repetitions of the same question was 13, 16, and 33 (13.5%, 16.8%, and 34.7%) for doctors, nurses, and patients, respectively. The number of errors in the summarized comment by the SDS was 5, 0, and 11 (5.2%, 0.0%, and 11.6 %), respectively. The number of summarization omissions was 7, 5, and 7 (7.3%, 5.3%, and 7.4%), respectively.
    CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in which voice-based conversational artificial intelligence (AI) was developed for a spinal pain questionnaire and validated by medical staff and patients. The conversational AI showed favorable results in terms of user satisfaction and performance accuracy. Conversational AI can be useful for the diagnosis and remote monitoring of various patients as well as for pain questionnaires in the future.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:对话代理具有通过多种媒介接触人们的能力,包括在线空间,移动电话,以及Alexa和GoogleHome等硬件设备。会话代理提供了一种引人入胜的交互方法,同时使信息更易于访问。他们进入与公共卫生和健康教育相关的领域也许不足为奇。虽然会话代理的构建随着时间的推移变得越来越简单,仍然需要时间和精力。关于什么构成对话代理,也缺乏清晰和一致的术语,这些代理是如何发展的,以及开发和维持它们所需的各种资源。对于那些寻求为健康教育计划建立对话代理的人来说,这种缺乏明确性带来了艰巨的任务。
    目的:本范围审查旨在确定报告对话代理的设计和实施的文献,以促进和教育公众与健康有关的事项。我们将根据市场上出现的当前分类和术语对健康教育中的对话代理进行分类。我们将明确定义对话代理的各种级别,对这些级别内的当前现有代理进行分类,并描述发展模式,工具,以及用于为医疗保健教育目的建立对话代理的资源。
    方法:此范围审查将通过采用Arksey和O\'Malley框架进行。我们还将坚持Levac等人和Peters等人提出的增强和更新。用于范围审查的系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)扩展的首选报告项目将指导此范围审查的报告。将从以下数据库中系统地搜索已出版和灰色文献:(1)PubMed,(2)心理信息,(3)Embase,(4)WebofScience,(5)扫射,(6)CINAHL,(7)ERIC,(8)MEDLINE,和(9)谷歌学者。数据图表将使用结构化格式完成。
    结果:数据库的初始搜索检索到1305个结果。结果将以叙述和说明的方式在最终的范围审查中呈现。
    结论:本范围审查将报告当今健康教育中使用的对话代理,并将包括代理级别的分类和工具种类的报告,资源,以及使用的设计和开发方法。
    未经批准:DERR1-10.2196/31923。
    BACKGROUND: Conversational agents have the ability to reach people through multiple mediums, including the online space, mobile phones, and hardware devices like Alexa and Google Home. Conversational agents provide an engaging method of interaction while making information easier to access. Their emergence into areas related to public health and health education is perhaps unsurprising. While the building of conversational agents is getting more simplified with time, there are still requirements of time and effort. There is also a lack of clarity and consistent terminology regarding what constitutes a conversational agent, how these agents are developed, and the kinds of resources that are needed to develop and sustain them. This lack of clarity creates a daunting task for those seeking to build conversational agents for health education initiatives.
    OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify literature that reports on the design and implementation of conversational agents to promote and educate the public on matters related to health. We will categorize conversational agents in health education in alignment with current classifications and terminology emerging from the marketplace. We will clearly define the variety levels of conversational agents, categorize currently existing agents within these levels, and describe the development models, tools, and resources being used to build conversational agents for health care education purposes.
    METHODS: This scoping review will be conducted by employing the Arksey and O\'Malley framework. We will also be adhering to the enhancements and updates proposed by Levac et al and Peters et al. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews will guide the reporting of this scoping review. A systematic search for published and grey literature will be undertaken from the following databases: (1) PubMed, (2) PsychINFO, (3) Embase, (4) Web of Science, (5) SCOPUS, (6) CINAHL, (7) ERIC, (8) MEDLINE, and (9) Google Scholar. Data charting will be done using a structured format.
    RESULTS: Initial searches of the databases retrieved 1305 results. The results will be presented in the final scoping review in a narrative and illustrative manner.
    CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will report on conversational agents being used in health education today, and will include categorization of the levels of the agents and report on the kinds of tools, resources, and design and development methods used.
    UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/31923.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    虽然早期的人机交互研究主要使用基于规则的架构进行自然语言交互,由于用户话语的差异很大,这些方法对于现实世界中的长期交互不够灵活。相比之下,数据驱动方法将用户输入直接映射到代理输出,因此,提供更多的灵活性与这些变化,而不需要任何一套规则。然而,数据驱动的方法通常应用于与用户的单一对话交流,而不是在与不同用户的长期对话中建立记忆,而长期互动需要逐步和持续地记住用户及其偏好,并回顾以前与用户的互动以适应和个性化互动,被称为终身学习问题。此外,从几个交互样本中学习用户偏好是可取的(即,少量学习)。这些被认为是机器学习中具有挑战性的问题,虽然它们对于基于规则的方法来说微不足道,在灵活性和健壮性之间进行权衡。相应地,在这项工作中,我们提供了基于文本的Barista数据集,用于评估数据驱动方法在通用和个性化长期人机交互中的潜力,并模拟了现实世界的问题。如识别错误,错误的召回和更改用户首选项。基于这些数据集,我们探索了最先进的数据驱动对话模型的性能和潜在的不准确性,这些模型是单一交互中其他个性化领域的强大基线,即监督嵌入,Sequence-to-Sequence,端到端内存网络,键值内存网络,和生成配置文件内存网络。实验表明,虽然数据驱动方法适用于通用的面向任务的对话和实时交互,没有一个模型表现得足够好,可以部署在现实世界中的个性化长期交互中,因为他们无法学习和使用新的身份,以及它们在回忆用户相关数据时表现不佳。
    While earlier research in human-robot interaction pre-dominantly uses rule-based architectures for natural language interaction, these approaches are not flexible enough for long-term interactions in the real world due to the large variation in user utterances. In contrast, data-driven approaches map the user input to the agent output directly, hence, provide more flexibility with these variations without requiring any set of rules. However, data-driven approaches are generally applied to single dialogue exchanges with a user and do not build up a memory over long-term conversation with different users, whereas long-term interactions require remembering users and their preferences incrementally and continuously and recalling previous interactions with users to adapt and personalise the interactions, known as the lifelong learning problem. In addition, it is desirable to learn user preferences from a few samples of interactions (i.e., few-shot learning). These are known to be challenging problems in machine learning, while they are trivial for rule-based approaches, creating a trade-off between flexibility and robustness. Correspondingly, in this work, we present the text-based Barista Datasets generated to evaluate the potential of data-driven approaches in generic and personalised long-term human-robot interactions with simulated real-world problems, such as recognition errors, incorrect recalls and changes to the user preferences. Based on these datasets, we explore the performance and the underlying inaccuracies of the state-of-the-art data-driven dialogue models that are strong baselines in other domains of personalisation in single interactions, namely Supervised Embeddings, Sequence-to-Sequence, End-to-End Memory Network, Key-Value Memory Network, and Generative Profile Memory Network. The experiments show that while data-driven approaches are suitable for generic task-oriented dialogue and real-time interactions, no model performs sufficiently well to be deployed in personalised long-term interactions in the real world, because of their inability to learn and use new identities, and their poor performance in recalling user-related data.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号