数据集:2000年至2026年倒闭的心理健康初创公司,包含18个编码字段
Dataset: Dead mental health startups, 2000-2026, coded on 18 fields

原始链接: https://mentalium.me/en/research/mental-health-startup-graveyard-dataset/

该数据集提供了对 2000 年至 2026 年间退出市场的 542 家数字心理健康机构的开源分析。数据以 CC BY 4.0 许可协议免费提供下载,按商业模式、融资情况、临床证据及具体倒闭原因对公司进行了分类。 主要结论包括: * **付费方至关重要:** 与直接面向消费者(B2C)的模式相比,针对机构(雇主、保险公司、医院)的公司的存活率明显更高。 * **临床医生的影响:** 与预期相反,拥有医学背景的联合创始人对这些机构的退出率没有可衡量的影响。 * **研究方法:** 该研究结合了 Crunchbase 等来源的事实数据与大模型(LLM)辅助分类。为确保透明度,作者为每个标签提供了详细的依据,鼓励用户核实并评判研究结果。 该数据集是一个“墓地”而非概率模型,旨在帮助创始人和研究人员了解数字心理健康领域的常见陷阱。报告最后附有一份详尽的 406 页分析,总结了七种倒闭模式,供在这一动荡行业中构建业务的人士参考。

近期的一场 Hacker News 讨论聚焦于一份长达 391 页的新报告,该报告详细分析了 2000 年至 2026 年间倒闭的心理健康初创公司。这份由 Mentalium 团队编制的数据集,旨在通过对失败企业的复盘(包括近期倒闭的“AI 治疗”初创公司)来提供战略见解。 讨论帖中的批评者质疑了报告的质量,指出了格式错误(如乱码的表情符号),并对报告生成过程中是否使用了人工智能表示怀疑。另一些人则对这类数据是否应该公开提出了质疑,不过作者为发布行为进行了辩护,指出这些数据源于公开的财务报告,而非敏感的患者信息。 讨论还转向了心理健康行业的伦理问题,一些用户认为,目前的经济模式往往倾向于让人们维持患病状态,而非从根本上解决问题。尽管面临批评,作者仍坚持认为该研究经过严谨的执行,旨在优化其自身的产品策略,并表示这份详尽的总结为那些希望了解为何如此多心理健康初创公司失败的人提供了极高的价值。
相关文章

原文

Download the data

No form, no email, no signup. CC BY 4.0 — use it, republish it, build on it.

What is in it

542 digital mental health organizations that left the market between 2000 and 2026 — shutdowns, bankruptcies, acquisitions, pivots and consolidations. Each coded on up to 18 fields: business model, who actually pays, funding raised, reason for leaving, clinical evidence, medical co-founder, revenue model, exit size, country, years of operation.

On top of that, four independent classification axes: what the product is (product_type), what kind of organization it was (entity_type), whether it replaced a clinician or wrapped around one (care_mode), and whether a human clinician was in the loop.

And one field that is not a category at all — key_mistake, a paragraph on what actually killed each company.

Reproduce the findings yourself

Every share in the report is computed from these rows. A worked example:

import csv
rows = list(csv.DictReader(open('mh-graveyard-companies.csv', encoding='utf-8')))
INSTITUTIONAL = {'employer', 'insurer', 'clinic', 'hospital', 'school'}

def rates(group):
    n = len(group)
    dead = sum(1 for r in group if r['outcome'] == 'dead')
    return f'n={n}  died {round(100*dead/n)}%'

print(rates([r for r in rows if r['payer'] == 'consumer']))   # n=258  died 53%
print(rates([r for r in rows if r['payer'] in INSTITUTIONAL]))  # n=254  died 21%
CutResult
Consumer paysn=258 · died 53% · exited 32%
An institution paysn=254 · died 21% · exited 57%
B2Cn=210 · died 53%
B2Bn=214 · died 24%
One-time purchasen=26 · died 85%
Medical co-founder — yesn=156 · exited 47%
Medical co-founder — non=254 · exited 47%
Clinical replacement, institution paysn=22 · died 50%
Care delivery, institution paysn=69 · died 9%

Who pays predicts survival far better than anything on the founding team. A clinician co-founder moves the exit rate by nothing at all: 47% against 47%.

The classification is LLM-assisted

The four axes were not coded by hand. LLM agents read each company’s full description and assigned labels against a fixed taxonomy. This is the weakest part of the method, which is exactly why the written reasoning for every single label ships in mh-graveyard-labels-rationale.csv — so the coding can be checked instead of trusted.

The factual fields — funding, dates, country, outcome — come from Crunchbase, CB Insights, Tracxn, public deadpool databases, app store removals, Ahrefs domain data and trade press, not from the classification pass.

If you find labels you disagree with, that is the most useful thing you can do with this data.

What it does not show

This is a graveyard, not a random sample. Every company in it already left the market, so the shares compare groups against each other — they are not probabilities of failure. Funding is disclosed for 59% of companies, and money cuts run on those only. About 67% of the sample is US and UK. Groups under 25 observations show a direction, not a precise value.

An acquisition is not a success either: some of these deals are fire sales out of bankruptcy.

The full report

The 406-page report built on this data — seven findings, the full catalogue of company stories, and an appendix showing the arithmetic behind every conclusion:

Mental health startup graveyard: 542 dead companies, seven patterns

I assembled it while building Mentalium, a voice-first CBT diary. Before putting years into a product in this niche, I wanted to know why it has so many corpses in it.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com