Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41380022›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

Observer-Independent Assessment of Content Overlap in Mental Health Questionnaires: Large Language Model-Based Study.

Annkathrin Böke, Hannah Hacker, Millennia Chakraborty, Luise Baumeister-Lingens, Jasper Vöckel, Julian Koenig, David Hv Vogel, Theresa Katharina Lichtenstein, Kai Vogeley, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic and 1 more

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Annkathrin BökeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, 50931, Germany, 49 22147887150.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-8016-5703
Hannah HackerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, 50931, Germany, 49 22147887150.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4709-5180
Millennia ChakrabortyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, 50931, Germany, 49 22147887150.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4353-2641
Luise Baumeister-LingensDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5070-2137
Jasper VöckelDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6306-3346
Julian KoenigDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1009-9625
David Hv VogelDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0645-9034
Theresa Katharina LichtensteinDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, 50931, Germany, 49 22147887150.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5573-1212
Kai VogeleyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, 50931, Germany, 49 22147887150.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5891-5831
Lana Kambeitz-IlankovicDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, 50931, Germany, 49 22147887150.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8218-0425
Joseph KambeitzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, 50931, Germany, 49 22147887150.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8988-3959

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mental disorders are frequently evaluated using questionnaires, which have been developed over the past decades for the assessment of different conditions. Despite the rigorous validation of these tools, high levels of content divergence have been reported for questionnaires measuring the same construct of psychopathology. Previous studies that examined the content overlap required manual symptom labeling, which is observer-dependent and time-consuming. Objective: In this study, we used large language models (LLMs) to analyze content overlap of mental health questionnaires in an observer-independent way and compare our results with clinical expertise. Methods: We analyzed questionnaires from a range of mental health conditions, including adult depression (n=7), childhood depression (n=15), clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P; n=11), mania (n=7), obsessive-compulsive disorder (n=7), and sleep disorder (n=12). Two different LLM-based approaches were tested. First, we used sentence Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (sBERT) to derive numerical representations (embeddings) for each questionnaire item, which were then clustered using k-means to group semantically similar symptoms. Second, questionnaire items were prompted to a Generative Pretrained Transformer to identify underlying symptom clusters. Clustering results were compared to a manual categorization by experts using the adjusted rand index. Further, we assessed the content overlap within each diagnostic domain based on LLM-derived clusters. Results: We observed varying degrees of similarity between expert-based and LLM-based clustering across diagnostic domains. Overall, agreement between experts was higher than between experts and LLMs. Among the 2 LLM approaches, GPT showed greater alignment with expert ratings than sBERT, ranging from weak to strong similarity depending on the diagnostic domain. Using GPT-based clustering of questionnaire items to assess the content overlap within each diagnostic domain revealed a weak (CHR-P: 0.344) to moderate (adult depression: 0.574; childhood depression: 0.433; mania: 0.419; obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD]: 0.450; sleep disorder: 0.445) content overlap of questionnaires. Compared to the studies that manually investigated content overlap among these scales, the results of this study exhibited variations, though these were not substantial. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the feasibility of using LLMs to objectively assess content overlap in diagnostic questionnaires. Notably, the GPT-based approach showed particular promise in aligning with expert-derived symptom structures.

Indexed as

content overlapGPTlarge language modelsquestionnairessBERTscalessentence Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformerssymptom overlap

Identifiers

PMID41380022
PMCPMC12697914

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.