ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating chatbots in psychiatry: Rasch-based insights into clinical knowledge and reasoning.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Plausibility in Large Language Model Robustness Testing for Medicine: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Impact of authoritative and subjective cues on large language model reliability for clinical inquiries: an experimental study.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chatbots are increasingly being recognized as valuable tools for clinical support in psychiatry. This study systematically evaluated the clinical knowledge and reasoning of 27 leading chatbots in psychiatry. Using 160 multiple-choice questions from the Taiwan Psychiatry Licensing Examinations and Rasch analysis, we quantified performance and qualitatively assessed reasoning processes. OpenAI's ChatGPT-o1-preview emerged as the top performer, achieving a Rasch ability score of 2.23, significantly surpassing the passing threshold (p < 0.001). While it excelled in diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning, it also demonstrated notable limitations in factual recall, niche topics, and occasional reasoning biases. Our findings indicate that while advanced chatbots hold significant potential as clinical decision-support tools, their current limitations underscore that rigorous human oversight is indispensable for patient safety. Continuous evaluation and domain-specific training are crucial for the safe integration of these technologies into clinical practice.
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.