ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Evaluating the agreement between ChatGPT-4 and validated questionnaires in screening for anxiety and depression in college students: a cross-sectional study.
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 4 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
4 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
- Using AI to Detect Psychosis Relapse: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Estimation of IPSS and OABSS scores using ChatGPT-4o: a comparative validation study in Korea.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in depression research: A bibliometric analysis of WoSCC-Indexed literature.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), an artificial intelligence-based web application, has demonstrated substantial potential across various knowledge domains, particularly in medicine. This cross-sectional study assessed the validity and possible usefulness of the ChatGPT-4 in assessing anxiety and depression by comparing two questionnaires.
methodsThis study tasked ChatGPT-4 with generating a structured interview questionnaire based on the validated Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7). These new measures were referred to as GPT-PHQ-9 and GPT-GAD-7. This study utilized Spearman correlation analysis, Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), Youden's index, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and Bland-Altman plots to evaluate the consistency between scores from a ChatGPT-4 adapted questionnaire and those from a validated questionnaire.
resultsA total of 200 college students participated. Cronbach's α indicated acceptable reliability for both GPT-PHQ-9 (α = 0.75) and GPT-GAD-7 (α = 0.76). ICC values were 0.80 for PHQ-9 and 0.70 for GAD-7. Spearman's correlation showed moderate associations with PHQ-9 (p = 0.63) and GAD-7 (p = 0.68). ROC curve analysis revealed optimal cutoffs of 9.5 for depressive symptoms and 6.5 for anxiety symptoms, both with high sensitivity and specificity.
conclusionsThe questionnaire adapted by ChatGPT-4 demonstrated good consistency with the validated questionnaire. Future studies should investigate the usefulness of the ChatGPT designed questionnaire in different populations.
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.