ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Performance of Open-Source Large Language Models in Psychiatry: Usability Study Through Comparative Analysis of Non-English Records and English Translations.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models for Distress Rating in Korean Psycho-Oncology Interviews: Exploratory Clinician-Benchmarked Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Information Quality and Semantic Stability of AI Chatbot Responses to Complete Denture Questions: A Turkish-English Benchmarking Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Large Language Models as a New Tool for Therapists in Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Blinded Clinician Rating Pilot Experiment.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Large language model approach to uncover reasoning patterns in forensic psychiatric assessment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Korean Medical Consultation With Open-Weight Large Language Models: Pilot Comparative Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation With Metadata Filtering.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- A review for navigating the trade-offs: evaluating open-source and proprietary large language models for clinical and biomedical information extraction.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- The humanitarian AI paradox: Key opportunities, challenges and research needs for the use of AI in humanitarian mental health response.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for addressing global disparities in mental health care. However, cloud-based proprietary models raise concerns about data privacy and limited adaptability to local health care systems. In contrast, open-source LLMs offer several advantages, including enhanced data security, the ability to operate offline in resource-limited settings, and greater adaptability to non-English clinical environments. Nevertheless, their performance in psychiatric applications involving non-English language inputs remains largely unexplored. Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical reasoning capabilities and diagnostic accuracy of a locally deployable open-source LLM in both Korean and English psychiatric contexts. Methods: The openbuddy-mistral-7b-v13.1 model, fine-tuned from Mistral 7B to enable conversational capabilities in Korean, was selected. A total of 200 deidentified psychiatric interview notes, documented during initial assessments of emergency department patients, were randomly selected from the electronic medical records of a tertiary hospital in South Korea. The dataset included 50 cases each of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. The model translated the Korean notes into English and was prompted to extract 5 clinically meaningful diagnostic clues and generate the 2 most likely diagnoses using both the original Korean and translated English inputs. The hallucination rate and clinical relevance of the generated clues were manually evaluated. Top-1 and top-2 diagnostic accuracy were assessed by comparing the model's prediction with the ground truth labels. Additionally, the model's performance on a structured diagnostic task was evaluated using the psychiatry section of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination and its English-translated version. Results: The model generated 997 clues from Korean interview notes and 1003 clues from English-translated notes. Hallucinations were more frequent with Korean input (n=301, 30.2%) than with English (n=134, 13.4%). Diagnostic relevance was also higher in English (n=429, 42.8%) compared to Korean (n=341, 34.2%). The model showed significantly higher top-1 diagnostic accuracy with English input (74.5% vs 59%; P<.001), while top-2 accuracy was comparable (89.5% vs 90%; P=.56). Across 115 questions from the medical licensing examination, the model performed better in English (n=53, 46.1%) than in Korean (n=37, 32.2%), with superior results in 7 of 11 diagnostic categories. Conclusions: This study provides an in-depth evaluation of an open-source LLM in multilingual psychiatric settings. The model's performance varied notably by language, with English input consistently outperforming Korean. These findings highlight the importance of assessing LLMs in diverse linguistic and clinical contexts. To ensure equitable mental health artificial intelligence, further development of high-quality psychiatric datasets in underrepresented languages and culturally adapted training strategies will be essential.
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.