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。

作者发布了一个数据集(mentalium.me),收录了 2000 年至 2026 年间退出市场的 542 家数字心理健康机构,退出方式包括倒闭、破产、被收购或业务转型。 该数据集为每个实体提供了 18 个字段的信息,涵盖融资、地理位置和结果等维度。数据的一项关键发现是,消费者付费模式的初创公司失败率(53%)显著高于机构资助型公司(21%)。有趣的是,数据表明拥有医学背景的联合创始人并不能在统计学上提高公司的存活率。 尽管作者承认该项目存在局限性,特别是分类标签由大语言模型生成,且该数据集属于“坟场”记录而非预测模型,但该项目旨在作为一项开放获取的行业贡献。 此发布在 Hacker News 上引发了争论,一些用户质疑其附带的 391 页报告的质量,另一些用户则批评了心理健康领域中“浅层”AI 套壳初创公司的趋势。作者鼓励社区对分类标签提供反馈,以提高数据集的准确性。
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