Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39972267›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2025

Integrative diagnosis of psychiatric conditions using ChatGPT and fMRI data.

Runda Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Runda LiVanderbilt University, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, 37235, TN, USA. Runda.li@vanderbilt.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional diagnostic methods for psychiatric disorders often rely on subjective assessments, leading to inconsistent diagnoses. Integrating advanced natural language processing (NLP) techniques with neuroimaging data may improve diagnostic accuracy.

methodsWe propose a novel approach that uses ChatGPT to conduct interactive patient interviews, capturing nuanced emotional and psychological data. By analyzing these dialogues using NLP, we generate a comprehensive feature matrix. This matrix, combined with 4D fMRI data, is input into a neural network to predict psychiatric diagnoses. We conducted comparative analysis with survey-based and app-based methods, providing detailed statistical validation.

resultsOur model achieved an accuracy of 85.7%, significantly outperforming traditional methods. Statistical analysis confirmed the superiority of the ChatGPT-based approach in capturing nuanced patient information, with p-values indicating significant improvements over baseline models.

conclusionsIntegrating NLP-driven patient interactions with fMRI data offers a promising approach to psychiatric diagnosis, enhancing precision and reliability. This method could advance clinical practice by providing a more objective and comprehensive diagnostic tool, although more research is needed to generalize these findings.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMental DisordersNatural Language ProcessingAdultBrainFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of ResultsChatGPTFMRIMachine learningMental healthNatural language processingNeural networkPsychiatric diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID39972267
PMCPMC11837688

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.