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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of Chatbots in Mental Health Screening and Assessment: Systematic Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Pooled it
- Generative Large Language Models in Mental Health Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- Benchmarking large language models against practicing clinicians on psychopathological assessment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Retrieval‑augmented large language models for depression screening and suicide risk stratification.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- SPEAK-SAFE: secure processing of electronic audio for knowledge in suicide assessment from therapeutic exchanges.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- ChatGPT Clinical Use in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review of Empirical Evidence.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Large language models in clinical psychiatry: Applications and optimization strategies.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- Exploratory Analysis of Nationwide Japanese Patient Safety Reports on Suicide and Suicide Attempts Among Inpatients With Cancer Using Large Language Models.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of large language models in rheumatology and clinical immunology: a systematic assessment based on Chinese national health professional qualification examination.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Validating GenAI feedback in suicide prevention training: a mixed-methods study of QPR skill assessment.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of large language models on mental health: from knowledge test to illness diagnosis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Generating Job Recommendations for People With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder Using Gemini 2.0 Flash and Claude Sonnet 4: An Exploratory Analysis.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.