Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39981191›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

From Llama to language: prompt-engineering allows general-purpose artificial intelligence to rate narratives like expert psychologists.

Barry Dauphin, Caleb Siefert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Barry DauphinDepartment of Psychology, University of Detroit-Mercy, Detroit, MI, United States.
Caleb SiefertBehavioral Sciences, Psychology, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has tremendous potential for use in psychology. Among the many applications that may benefit from development of AI applications is narrative-personality assessment. Use of these tools and research methods is notably time-consuming and resource intensive. AI has potential to address these issues in ways that would greatly reduce clinician and researcher burden. Nonetheless, it is unclear if current AI models are sufficiently sophisticated to perform the complex downstream tasks, such as narrative assessment. Methodology: The purpose of this study is to explore if an expert-refined prompt generation process can enable AI-empowered chatbots to reliably and accurately rate narratives using the Social Cognition and Object Relations scales - Global Rating Method (SCORS-G). Experts generated prompt inputs by engaging in a detailed review of SCORS-G training materials. Prompts were then improved using an systematic process in which experts worked with Results: Results showed that the refined prompts allowed chatbots to reliably rate narratives at the global level, though accuracy varied across subscales. Averaging ratings from two chatbots notably improved reliability for the global score and all subscale scores. Experimentation indicated that expert-refined prompts outperformed basic prompts regarding interrater reliability and absolute agreement with gold standard ratings. Only the expert-refined prompts were able to generate acceptable single-rater interrater reliability estimates. Discussion: Findings suggest that AI could significantly reduce the time and resource burdens on clinicians and researchers using narrative rating systems like the SCORS-G. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencenarrative researchpersonalitypersonality assessmentpsychopathologySocial Cognition and Object Relations Scales

Identifiers

PMID39981191
PMCPMC11839667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.