ArticleJournal of mood and anxiety disorders2025
Clinical decision support for pharmacologic management of treatment-resistant depression with augmented large language models.
Article in Journal of mood and anxiety disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We evaluated whether a large language model could assist in selecting psychopharmacological treatments for adults with treatment-resistant depression. Methods: We generated 20 clinical vignettes reflecting treatment-resistant depression among adults based on distributions drawn from electronic health records. Each vignette was evaluated by 2 expert psychopharmacologists to determine and rank the 5 best next-step pharmacologic interventions, as well as contraindicated or poor next-step treatments. Vignettes were then presented in random order, permuting gender and race, to a large language model (Qwen 2.5:7B), augmented with a synopsis of published treatment guidelines. Model output was compared to expert rankings, as well as to those of a convenience sample of community clinicians and an additional group of expert clinicians. Results: The augmented model prioritized the expert-designated optimal choice for 114/320 vignettes (35.6 %, 95 % CI 30.6 %-41.0 %; Cohen's kappa = 0.34, 95 % CI 0.28-0.39). There were no vignettes for which any of the model choices were among the poor or contraindicated treatments. Results were not meaningfully different when gender or race of the vignette was permuted to examine risk for bias. A sample of community clinicians identified the optimal treatment choice for 12/91 vignettes (13.2 %, 95 % CI: 7.7-21.6 %; Cohen's kappa = 0.10, 95 % CI 0.03-0.18), while an additional group of expert psychopharmacologists identified optimal treatment for 9/140 (6.4 %, 95 %CI: 3.4-11.8 %; Cohen's kappa = 0.03, 95 % CI 0.01-0.08). Conclusion: An augmented language model demonstrated moderate agreement with expert recommendations and avoided contraindicated treatments, suggesting potential as a tool for supporting complex psychopharmacologic decision-making in treatment-resistant depression.
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.