Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41118647›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

Aiding Large Language Models Using Clinical Scoresheets for Neurobehavioral Diagnostic Classification From Text: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Kaiying Lin, Abdur Rasool, Saimourya Surabhi, Cezmi Mutlu, Haopeng Zhang, Dennis P Wall, Peter Washington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Kaiying LinInstitute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7691-1407
Abdur RasoolUniversity of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5334-9001
Saimourya SurabhiStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1707-0537
Cezmi MutluStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9263-9332
Haopeng ZhangUniversity of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7017-0717
Dennis P WallStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7889-9146
Peter WashingtonUniversity of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3276-4411

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform complex tasks traditionally requiring human intelligence. However, their use in automated diagnostics for psychiatry and behavioral sciences remains under-studied.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether incorporating structured clinical assessment scales improved the diagnostic performance of LLM-based chatbots for neuropsychiatric conditions (we evaluated autism spectrum disorder, aphasia, and depression datasets) across two prompting strategies: (1) direct diagnosis and (2) code generation. We aimed to contextualize LLM-based diagnostic performance by benchmarking it against prior work that applied traditional machine learning classifiers to the same datasets, allowing us to assess whether LLMs offer competitive or complementary capabilities in clinical classification tasks.

methodsWe tested two approaches using ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude models: (1) direct diagnostic querying and (2) execution of chatbot-generated code for classification. Three diagnostic datasets were used: ASDBank (autism spectrum disorder), AphasiaBank (aphasia), and Distress Analysis Interview Corpus-Wizard-of-Oz interviews (depression and related conditions). Each approach was evaluated with and without the aid of clinical assessment scales. Performance was compared to existing machine learning benchmarks on these datasets.

resultsAcross all 3 datasets, incorporating clinical assessment scales led to little improvement in performance, and results remained inconsistent and generally below those reported in previous studies. On the AphasiaBank dataset, the direct diagnosis approach using ChatGPT with GPT-4 produced a low F

conclusionsCurrent LLM-based chatbots, when prompted naively, underperform on psychiatric and behavioral diagnostic tasks compared to specialized machine learning models. Clinical assessment scales might modestly aid chatbot performance, but more sophisticated prompt engineering and domain integration are likely required to reach clinically actionable standards.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligencechatbotclassificationlarge language modelLLMneurological diagnostics

Identifiers

PMID41118647
PMCPMC12587012

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.