ArticleJMIR AI2025
Observer-Independent Assessment of Content Overlap in Mental Health Questionnaires: Large Language Model-Based Study.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of conceptual overlap among formal thought disorder rating scales in psychosis: a systematic semantic synthesis.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.