ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Large Language Models for Psychiatric Diagnosis Based on Multicenter Real-World Clinical Records: Comparative Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative Large Language Models in Mental Health Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- Article
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
backgroundPsychiatric disorders are diagnostically challenging and often rely on subjective clinical judgment, particularly in resource-limited settings. Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in supporting psychiatric diagnosis; however, robust evidence from large-scale, real-world clinical data remains limited.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of multiple LLMs for psychiatric disorders using multicenter real-world electronic health records (EHRs).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 9923 inpatient EHRs collected from 6 psychiatric centers across China, encompassing all ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) psychiatric categories. In total, 3 LLMs-GPT-4.0 (OpenAI), GPT-3.5 (OpenAI), and GLM-4-Plus (Zhipu AI)-were evaluated against physician-confirmed discharge diagnoses. Diagnostic performance was assessed using strict accuracy criteria and lenient classification metrics, with subgroup analyses conducted across diagnostic categories and age groups.
resultsGPT-4.0 achieved the highest overall strict diagnostic accuracy (71.7%) and the highest weighted F1-score under lenient evaluation (0.881), particularly for high-prevalence disorders, such as mood disorders and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Diagnostic performance varied across age groups, with the highest accuracy observed in older adult patients (up to 79.5%) and lower accuracy in adolescents. Across centers, model performance remained stable, with no significant intercenter differences.
conclusionsLLMs-especially GPT-4.0-demonstrate promising capability in supporting psychiatric diagnosis using real-world EHRs. However, diagnostic performance varies by age group and disorder category. LLMs should be regarded as assistive tools rather than replacements for clinical judgment, and further validation is needed before routine clinical implementation.
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.