ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Evaluating Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) models for suicide risk assessment in synthetic patient journal entries.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
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
Over 700,000 individuals die by suicide globally each year, with rapid progression from suicidal ideation (SI) to attempt often precluding opportunities for intervention. Digital behavioral health (DBH) platforms offer novel means of collecting SI indicators outside the clinic, but the actionable utility of these data may be limited by clinician-dependent workflows such as reviewing patients' journaling exercises for signs of SI. Large language models (LLMs) provide a methodology to streamline this task by rapidly risk-stratifying text based on the presence and severity of SI; however, this application has yet to be reliably evaluated. To test this approach, we first generated and validated a corpus of 125 synthetic journal responses to prompts from a real-world DBH platform. The responses varied on the presence and severity of suicidal ideation, readability, length, use of emojis, and other common language features, allowing for over 1 trillion feature permutations. Next, five collaborating behavioral health experts worked independently to stratify these responses as no-, low-, moderate-, or high-risk SI. Finally, we risk-stratified the responses using several tailored implementations of OpenAI's Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) models and compared the results to those of our raters. Using clinician consensus as "ground truth," our ensemble LLM performed significantly above chance (30.38%) in exact risk-assessment agreement (65.60%; χ2 = 86.58). The ensemble model also aligned with 92% of clinicians' "do/do not intervene" decisions (Cohen's Kappa = 0.84) and achieved 94% sensitivity and 91% specificity in that task. Additional results of precision-recall, time-to-decision, and cost analyses are reported. While further testing and exploration of ethical considerations remain critical, our results offer preliminary evidence that LLM-powered risk stratification can serve as a powerful and cost-effective tool to enhance suicide prevention frameworks.
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.