Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39852192›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of investigation in health, psychology and education2025

Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy and Treatment Efficacy in Mental Health: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Model Tools and Mental Health Professionals.

Inbar Levkovich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Inbar LevkovichFaculty of Education, Tel-Hai Academic College, Upper Galilee 2208, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-1582-3889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) offer promising possibilities in mental health, yet their ability to assess disorders and recommend treatments remains underexplored. This quantitative cross-sectional study evaluated four LLMs (Gemini (Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental), Claude (Claude 3.5 Sonnet), ChatGPT-3.5, and ChatGPT-4) using text vignettes representing conditions such as depression, suicidal ideation, early and chronic schizophrenia, social phobia, and PTSD. Each model's diagnostic accuracy, treatment recommendations, and predicted outcomes were compared with norms established by mental health professionals. Findings indicated that for certain conditions, including depression and PTSD, models like ChatGPT-4 achieved higher diagnostic accuracy compared to human professionals. However, in more complex cases, such as early schizophrenia, LLM performance varied, with ChatGPT-4 achieving only 55% accuracy, while other LLMs and professionals performed better. LLMs tended to suggest a broader range of proactive treatments, whereas professionals recommended more targeted psychiatric consultations and specific medications. In terms of outcome predictions, professionals were generally more optimistic regarding full recovery, especially with treatment, while LLMs predicted lower full recovery rates and higher partial recovery rates, particularly in untreated cases. While LLMs recommend a broader treatment range, their conservative recovery predictions, particularly for complex conditions, highlight the need for professional oversight. LLMs provide valuable support in diagnostics and treatment planning but cannot replace professional discretion.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedepressionlarge language modelsmental healthPTSDschizophreniasocial phobiasuicide

Identifiers

PMID39852192
PMCPMC11765082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.