Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41086458›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2025

Comparing Generative Artificial Intelligence and Mental Health Professionals for Clinical Decision-Making With Trauma-Exposed Populations: Vignette-Based Experimental Study.

Katherine E Wislocki, Sabahat Sami, Gahl Liberzon, Alyson K Zalta

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Katherine E WislockiDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, 4201 Social and Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA, 92697, United States, 1 949-824-5574.ORCID 0000-0003-0821-1622
Sabahat SamiDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, 4201 Social and Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA, 92697, United States, 1 949-824-5574.ORCID 0009-0000-1687-3496
Gahl LiberzonDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, 4201 Social and Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA, 92697, United States, 1 949-824-5574.ORCID 0009-0000-6339-5706
Alyson K ZaltaDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, 4201 Social and Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA, 92697, United States, 1 949-824-5574.ORCID 0000-0002-5159-8431

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Trauma exposure is highly prevalent and associated with various health issues. However, health care professionals can exhibit trauma-related diagnostic overshadowing bias, leading to misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment of trauma-exposed populations. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) models are increasingly used in health care contexts. No research has examined whether GAI demonstrates this bias in decision-making and how rates of this bias may compare to mental health professionals (MHPs). Objective: This study aimed to assess trauma-related diagnostic overshadowing among frontier GAI models and compare evidence of trauma-related diagnostic overshadowing between frontier GAI models and MHPs. Methods: MHPs (N=232; mean [SD] age 43.7 [15.95] years) completed an experimental paradigm consisting of 2 vignettes describing adults presenting with obsessive-compulsive symptoms or substance abuse symptoms. One vignette included a trauma exposure history (ie, sexual trauma or physical trauma), and one vignette did not include a trauma exposure history. Participants answered questions about their preferences for diagnosis and treatment options for clients within the vignettes. GAI models (eg, Gemini 1.5 Flash, ChatGPT-4o mini, Claude Sonnet, and Meta Llama 3) completed the same experimental paradigm, with each block being reviewed by each GAI model 20 times. Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-square analyses were used to assess diagnostic and treatment decision-making across vignette factors and respondents. Results: GAI models, similar to MHPs, demonstrated some evidence of trauma-related diagnostic overshadowing bias, particularly in Likert-based ratings of posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis and treatment when sexual trauma was present (P<.001). However, GAI models generally exhibited significantly less bias than MHPs across both Likert and forced-choice clinical decision tasks. Compared to MHPs, GAI models assigned higher ratings for the target diagnosis and treatment in obsessive-compulsive disorder vignettes (rb=0.43-0.63; P<.001) and for the target treatment in substance use disorder vignettes (rb=0.57; P<.001) when trauma was present. In forced-choice tasks, GAI models were significantly more accurate than MHPs in selecting the correct diagnosis and treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder vignettes (χ²1=48.84-61.07; P<.001) and for substance use disorder vignettes involving sexual trauma (χ²1=15.17-101.61; P<.001). Conclusions: GAI models demonstrate some evidence of trauma-related diagnostic overshadowing bias, yet the degree of bias varied by task and model. Moreover, GAI models generally demonstrated less bias than MHPs in this experimental paradigm. These findings highlight the importance of understanding GAI biases in mental health care. More research into bias reduction strategies and responsible implementation of GAI models in mental health care is needed.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingHealth PersonnelAdultFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedStress Disorders, Post-Traumaticdiagnosisgenerative artificial intelligencemental health professionalstraumatreatment

Identifiers

PMID41086458
PMCPMC12527320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.