ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Effectiveness of generative AI-large language models' recognition of veteran suicide risk: a comparison with human mental health providers using a risk stratification model.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative Large Language Models in Mental Health Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- Are artificial intelligence chatbots safe for suicide risk assessment? A narratively synthesized review of current evidence.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Review
- Validating GenAI feedback in suicide prevention training: a mixed-methods study of QPR skill assessment.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With over 6,300 United States military veterans dying by suicide annually, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is exploring innovative strategies, including artificial intelligence (AI), for suicide risk assessment. Machine learning has been predominantly utilized, but the application of generative AI-large language models (GAI-LLMs) remains unexplored. Objective: This study evaluates the effectiveness of GAI-LLMs, specifically ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, and Google Gemini, in using the VHA's Risk Stratification Table for identifying suicide risks and making treatment recommendations in response to standardized veteran vignettes. Methods: We compared the GAI-LLMs' assessments and recommendations for both acute and chronic suicide risks to evaluations by mental health care providers (MHCPs). Four vignettes, representing varying levels of suicide risk, were used. Results: GAI-LLMs' assessments showed discrepancies with MHCPs, particularly rating the most acute case as less acute and the least acute case as more acute. For chronic risk, GAI-LLMs' evaluations were generally in line with MHCPs, except for one vignette rated with higher chronic risk by the GAI-LLM. Variation across GAI-LLMs was also observed. Notably, ChatGPT-3.5 showed lower acute risk ratings compared to ChatGPT-4o and Google Gemini, while ChatGPT-4o identified higher chronic risk ratings and recommended hospitalization for all veterans. Treatment planning by GAI-LLMs was predicted by chronic but not acute risk ratings. Conclusion: While GAI-LLMs offers potential suicide risk assessment comparable to MHCPs, significant variation exists across different GAI-LLMs in both risk evaluation and treatment recommendations. Continued MHCP oversight is essential to ensure accuracy and appropriate care. Implications: These findings highlight the need for further research into optimizing GAI-LLMs for consistent and reliable use in clinical settings, ensuring they complement rather than replace human expertise.
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.