Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40355854›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2025

A controlled trial examining large Language model conformity in psychiatric assessment using the Asch paradigm.

Dorit Hadar Shoval, Karny Gigi, Yuval Haber, Amir Itzhaki, Kfir Asraf, David Piterman, Zohar Elyoseph

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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Dorit Hadar ShovalThe Center for Psychobiological Research, Department of Psychology and Educational Counseling, Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Yezreel Valley, Israel. dorith@yvc.ac.il.
Karny GigiThe Institute for Research and Development, The Artificial Third, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yuval HaberThe Institute for Research and Development, The Artificial Third, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Amir ItzhakiThe Institute for Research and Development, The Artificial Third, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Kfir AsrafThe Center for Psychobiological Research, Department of Psychology and Educational Counseling, Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Yezreel Valley, Israel.
David PitermanFaculty of Education, School of Therapy, Counseling, and Human Development, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Zohar ElyosephThe Institute for Research and Development, The Artificial Third, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite significant advances in AI-driven medical diagnostics, the integration of large language models (LLMs) into psychiatric practice presents unique challenges. While LLMs demonstrate high accuracy in controlled settings, their performance in collaborative clinical environments remains unclear. This study examined whether LLMs exhibit conformity behavior under social pressure across different diagnostic certainty levels, with a particular focus on psychiatric assessment.

methodsUsing an adapted Asch paradigm, we conducted a controlled trial examining GPT-4o's performance across three domains representing increasing levels of diagnostic uncertainty: circle similarity judgments (high certainty), brain tumor identification (intermediate certainty), and psychiatric assessment using children's drawings (high uncertainty). The study employed a 3 × 3 factorial design with three pressure conditions: no pressure, full pressure (five consecutive incorrect peer responses), and partial pressure (mixed correct and incorrect peer responses). We conducted 10 trials per condition combination (90 total observations), using standardized prompts and multiple-choice responses. The binomial test and chi-square analyses assessed performance differences across conditions.

resultsUnder no pressure, GPT-4o achieved 100% accuracy across all domains. Under full pressure, accuracy declined systematically with increasing diagnostic uncertainty: 50% in circle recognition, 40% in tumor identification, and 0% in psychiatric assessment. Partial pressure showed a similar pattern, with maintained accuracy in basic tasks (80% in circle recognition, 100% in tumor identification) but complete failure in psychiatric assessment (0%). All differences between no pressure and pressure conditions were statistically significant (P <.05), with the most severe effects observed in psychiatric assessment (χ²₁=16.20, P <.001).

conclusionsThis study reveals that LLMs exhibit conformity patterns that intensify with diagnostic uncertainty, culminating in complete performance failure in psychiatric assessment under social pressure. These findings suggest that successful implementation of AI in psychiatry requires careful consideration of social dynamics and the inherent uncertainty in psychiatric diagnosis. Future research should validate these findings across different AI systems and diagnostic tools while developing strategies to maintain AI independence in clinical settings.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersAdolescentAdultBrain NeoplasmsChildFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleUncertaintyClinical conformityDiagnostic uncertaintyLarge language modelsPsychiatric assessmentSocial influence

Identifiers

PMID40355854
PMCPMC12070653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.