ArticleScientific reports2025
Generative AI-assisted clinical interviewing of mental health.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Emerging information technologies across the autism service and prevention continuum: a narrative review of screening, diagnosis, intervention, and health equity.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in psychiatry: clinical applications, limitations, and ethical challenges.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The standard assessment of mental health typically involves clinical interviews conducted by highly trained clinicians. While effective, this approach faces substantial limitations, including high costs, high clinician workload, variability in expertise, and a lack of standardization. Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue to address these limitations by simulating clinician-administered interviews through AI-powered systems. However, few studies have rigorously validated such tools. In this study, we used TalkToAlba to develop and evaluat an AI assistant designed to conduct clinical interviews aligned with DSM-5 criteria. Participants (N = 303) included individuals with self-reported clinician-diagnosed mental health disorders, namely, major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), eating disorders (ED), substance use disorder (SUD), and bipolar disorder (BD)-alongside healthy controls. The AI assistant conducted diagnostic interviews and assessed the likelihood of each disorder, while another AI system analyzed interview transcripts to verify diagnostic criteria and generate comprehensive justifications for its conclusions. The results showed that the AI-powered clinical interview achieved higher agreement (i.e., Cohen's Kappa), sensitivity, and specificity in identifying self-reported, clinician-diagnosed disorders compared to established rating scales. It also exhibited significantly lower co-dependencies between diagnostic categories. Additionally, most participants rated the AI-powered interview as highly empathic, relevant, understanding, and supportive. These findings suggest that AI-powered clinical interviews can serve as accurate, standardized, and person-centered tools for assessing common mental disorders. Their scalability, low cost, and positive user experience position them as a valuable complement to traditional diagnostic methods, with potential for widespread application in mental health care delivery.
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.