Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40619512›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparing traditional natural language processing and large language models for mental health status classification: a multi-model evaluation.

Thomas Kallstenius, Andrea Johansson Capusan, Gerhard Andersson, Adam Williamson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Artificial Intelligence-Empowered Multimodal Learning in Psychiatry: A Scoping Review.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026
    Review
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

4 authors.

Thomas KallsteniusTrädtopp, Tervuren, Belgium.
Andrea Johansson CapusanDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Gerhard AnderssonDepartment of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Adam WilliamsonDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. adam.williamson@liu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The substantial increase in mental health disorders globally necessitates scalable, accurate tools for detecting and classifying these conditions in digital environments. This study addresses the critical challenge of automated mental health classification by comparing three distinct computational approaches: (1) Traditional Natural Language Processing (NLP) with advanced feature engineering, (2) Prompt-engineered large language models (LLMs), and (3) Fine-tuned LLMs. The dataset consisted of over 51,000 publicly available text statements from social media platforms, tagged with seven mental health conditions: Normal, Depression, Suicidal, Anxiety, Stress, Bipolar Disorder, and Personality Disorder. The dataset was stratified into training, validation, and test sets for model evaluation. The primary outcome was classification accuracy across these seven mental health conditions. Additional metrics like precision, recall, and F1-score were analyzed. We compared the results of the three computational approaches and overfitting was monitored through validation loss across epochs for the fine-tuned LLM. The NLP model with advanced feature engineering achieved an overall accuracy of 95%, surpassing both the prompt-engineered LLM (65%) and the fine-tuned LLM (91%). This model performed exceptionally well in terms of accuracy and precision. While fine-tuning for three epochs yielded optimal results, further training led to overfitting and decreased performance. This study demonstrates the significant benefits of applying advanced text preprocessing and feature engineering techniques to traditional NLP models, alongside fine-tuning LLMs, such as GPT-4o-mini, for mental health classification tasks. The results clearly indicate that off-the-shelf LLM chatbots using prompt engineering are inadequate for mental health classification, performing 30% points below specialized NLP approaches. Despite the popularity of general-purpose LLMs, specialized approaches remain superior for critical healthcare applications like mental health classification.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental HealthNatural Language ProcessingHumansLarge Language ModelsSocial MediaComputational psychiatryLarge language modelsMachine learning in psychiatryMental health classificationNatural language processingText classification

Identifiers

PMID40619512
PMCPMC12230148

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.