ArticleBMJ mental health2025
Interpreting psychiatric digital phenotyping data with large language models: a preliminary analysis.
Article in BMJ mental health, 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.
- Comprehensive Model for Mental health Access and service use (CoMMA): A process model for technology-enhanced mental healthcare.Internet interventions · 2026Review
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital phenotyping provides passive monitoring of behavioural health but faces implementation challenges in translating complex multimodal data into actionable clinical insights. Digital navigators, healthcare staff who interpret patient data and relay findings to clinicians, provide a solution, but workforce limitations restrict scalability.
objectiveThis study provides one of the first systematic evaluation of large language model performance in interpreting simulated psychiatric digital phenotyping data, establishing baseline accuracy metrics for this emerging application.
methodsWe evaluated GPT-4o and GPT-3.5-turbo across over 153 test cases covering various clinical scenarios, timeframes and data quality levels using simulated test datasets currently employed in training human digital navigators. Performance was assessed on the model's capacity to identify clinical patterns relative to human digital navigation experts.
findingsGPT-4o demonstrated 52% accuracy (95% CI 46.5% to 57.6%) in identifying clinical patterns based on standard test cases, significantly outperforming GPT-3.5-turbo (12%, 95% CI 8.4% to 15.6%). When analysing GPT-4o's performance across different scenarios, strongest results were observed for worsening depression (100%) and worsening anxiety (83%) patterns while weakest performance was seen for increased home time with improving symptoms (6%). Accuracy declined with decreasing data quality (69% for high-quality data vs 39% for low-quality data) and shorter timeframes (60% for 3-month data vs 43% for 3-week data).
conclusionsGPT-4o's 52% accuracy in zero-shot interpretation of psychiatric digital phenotyping data establishes a meaningful baseline, though performance gaps and occasional hallucinations confirm human oversight in digital navigation tasks remains essential. The significant performance variations across models, data quality levels and clinical scenarios highlight the need for careful implementation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Large language models could serve as assistive tools that augment human digital navigators, potentially addressing workforce limitations while maintaining necessary clinical oversight in psychiatric digital phenotyping applications.
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.