ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparing traditional natural language processing and large language models for mental health status classification: a multi-model evaluation.
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.
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.
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Large Language Models and Their Applications in Mental Health: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Cultural Relevance and Acceptability of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Techniques Adapted by AI or a Human Psychologist: Experimental Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Empowered Multimodal Learning in Psychiatry: A Scoping Review.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.