Mental health research on social media has been dominated by English-language datasets and DSM-5-centered resources, limiting cross-lingual and cross-cultural understanding of online mental health expression. We introduce MATCHA, the first Chinese multi-disorder mental health dataset that links disorder-specific Weibo Super-Topic communities with users' broader public timelines. MATCHA covers seven DSM-5 disorders and a control group, comprising 46,025 cohort-level users and 1.8 million posts. The dataset distinguishes users with explicit self-disclosure evidence from broader disorder-related participants through an LLM-assisted annotation pipeline, and is released in a rigorously de-identified, controlled-access format. Using MATCHA, we analyze behavioral, linguistic, symptom-related, and life-event-related patterns across disorders, and conduct cross-lingual comparisons with Twitter-STMHD. Our analyses show that Weibo Super-Topics function as concentrated spaces for affective and health-related expression, while cross-platform differences between Weibo and Twitter often exceed cross-disorder variation. MATCHA provides a new resource for community-aware and cross-lingual mental health NLP research.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the MATCHA Dataset Collection and LLM -assisted Annotation Pipeline.
Figure 2: Composition of MATCHA across disorder and control cohorts. Panel (a) reports cohort-level user counts and Panel (b) reports within-cohort deduplicated post counts. Across the eight cohorts, MATCHA contains 46,025 cohort-level users and 1,834,699 within-cohort unique posts. Because cohorts are not mutually exclusive, these aggregated counts may include users or posts appearing in more than one cohort.
Disorder
IP users [%]
IP posts [%]
STP/IP
STP/non-IP
ADHD
23.5
34.5
7.6
4.4
ASD
8.9
58.9
50.1
3.4
BD
18.8
43.6
7.6
2.3
DEP
19.4
50.3
12.5
3.0
GAD
28.6
61.7
10.3
2.6
OCD
23.3
53.6
10.3
2.7
Table 1: Posting activity comparison between CEP-defined IP and non-IP users within the Super-Topic Post (STP) population across disorders. IP denotes explicit textual self-disclosure evidence under the operational CEP criterion, not clinically verified diagnosis.
Disorder
Evening [%]
Δ Evening [pp]
Night Ratio
ADHD
21.9
0.5
0.50
ASD
22.8
1.4
0.57
BD
27.2
5.8
1.18
DEP
27.7
6.3
1.20
GAD
26.8
5.4
0.72
OCD
26.2
4.8
0.94
Table 2: User-normalized evening and night-time posting metrics for the full disorder cohorts, computed on the merged STP+HP corpus after note-ID deduplication. Evening is each user’s 20:00–23:00 posting share averaged over users; Δ Evening is relative to the original control cohort; Night Ratio is the 22:00–05:00 share divided by the 10:00–17:00 share.
Figure 3: Proxy-signal density, defined as the expected number of classifier-positive labels per post, for CEP-defined IP users’ STP and HP across disorders. The dashed line denotes the corresponding HP-control baseline. Classifier outputs are aggregate proxies rather than clinical assessments.
Figure 4: Cross-lingual Pearson correlation matrices for (a) LIWC feature log ratios, (b) posting hours, (c) life-event distributions, and (d) symptom distributions. Cross-platform symptom correlations in (d) are lower on average than within-platform correlations, indicating substantial platform- and language-associated variation in symptom composition. These correlations are descriptive and do not identify causal cultural effects. Numbers in the upper-right corner of each cell denote statistical significance levels: 1 = p<0.001 , 2 = p<0.01 , and 3 = p<0.05 .
Figure 5: Cross-platform differences in core LIWC features across BD, DEP, GAD, and OCD. Bars show within-platform cohort–control frequency differences (percentage points) for CEP-defined MATCHA IP cohorts and frozen Twitter-STMHD cohorts.
Figure 6: Cross-platform symptom-category distribution differences between MATCHA and Twitter-STMHD. Avoidance is excluded from STMHD due to unstable English classifier behavior.
Table 4: Disorder cohorts and their corresponding public Weibo Super-Topics. Chinese terms are accompanied by pinyin transliterations and English glosses.
Symptom
Life Event
Number of labels
38
12
Annotated posts
13,723
13,723
Annotation records
22,153
22,153
Median positive rate
2.26%
1.47%
Positive rate range
0.78–16.39%
0.26–43.94%
Most frequent label
Depressed Mood
Health
Appendix
Table 5: Annotation statistics for the Chinese training data. The 22,153 records are shared post–annotator records annotated for both task families; the two columns are not additive.
Task
Macro AUC
Micro AUC
Macro F1
Symptom
0.9374
0.9494
0.5579
Life Event
0.9533
0.9673
0.6449
Appendix
Table 6: Chinese classifier evaluation on a held-out test set ( n=2,745 ). Per-label decision thresholds were selected on the validation set and applied once to the held-out test set.
Task
Macro AUC
Micro AUC
Macro F1
Symptom
0.9910
0.9942
0.8852
Life Event
0.9769
0.9767
0.7669
Appendix
Table 7: English classifier evaluation results on held-out test sets.
#
Label
Positive (1)
Positive %
Mentioned (0+1)
Mentioned %
1
Irritable Mood
372
2.71
499
3.64
2
Anxious Mood
1,498
10.92
1,835
13.37
3
Autonomic Symptoms
834
6.08
899
6.55
4
Cardiovascular Symptoms
740
5.39
786
5.73
5
Catatonic Behavior
197
1.44
244
1.78
6
Fatigue or Loss of Energy
550
4.01
622
4.53
Appendix
Table 8: Per-label annotation statistics for symptom labels. Positive counts correspond to value 1, while mention counts include both 0 and 1, i.e., instances in which the corresponding category was mentioned in the post.
#
Label
Pos.
Pos. [%]
Mentioned
Mentioned [%]
1
Bereavement
90
0.66
196
1.43
2
Health
6,030
43.94
7,409
53.99
3
Relationship Change
303
2.21
658
4.79
4
Family Member Change
46
0.34
199
1.45
5
Relocation
116
0.85
228
1.66
6
Education
236
1.72
431
3.14
Appendix
Table 9: Per-label annotation statistics for life-event labels.
Examinations, school transition, academic stress, dropping out
Financial
Debt, bankruptcy, major financial difficulty, home purchase
Relocation
Moving cities, immigration, homelessness, leaving parents’ home
Appendix
Table 12: Representative life-event categories in MATCHA.
Source
Posts
Dis. [%]
Clin. [%]
Either [%]
HP-control
153,704
0.17
0.42
0.57
STP
169,508
13.88
8.22
19.74
HP
1,559,045
3.72
1.31
4.64
Appendix
Table 13: Post-level prevalence of explicit disorder and clinical cues across sources.
Panel A: Original versus fully masked text
Source
F1 orig
F1 masked
Δ F1
AUROC orig
AUROC masked
STP
0.953±0.006
0.936±0.007
−0.017
0.995
0.992
HP
0.842±0.012
0.833±0.012
−0.009
0.932
0.927
Panel B: Tiered cue masking
Condition
A
B
C
Δ (A–B)
Δ (A–C)
HP-only
0.842±0.012
0.833±0.012
0.833±0.012
0.009
0.009
Appendix
Table 14: Cue-masking performance. Panel A compares original and fully masked text; Panel B reports tiered masking results. Values are mean ± standard deviation over five seeds.
HP
STP
Disorder
Original
Masked
Δ
Original
Masked
Δ
ADHD
0.858
0.847
0.011
0.953
0.910
0.043
ASD
0.874
0.856
0.018
0.967
0.937
0.030
BD
0.850
0.849
0.001
0.952
0.949
0.003
DEP
0.789
0.783
0.006
0.956
0.952
0.004
GAD
0.808
0.805
0.002
0.977
0.972
0.005
Appendix
Table 15: Per-disorder Macro-F1 before and after masking disorder-name and clinical cues. Δ denotes the absolute decrease from the original condition.