ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Interpretable depression assessment using a large language model.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
- Leakage-Free Multimodal Depression Screening: Controlled Evaluation of Text, Facial Behavior, and Prosodic Fusion.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detecting depression from conversational text using large language models (LLMs) has garnered significant interest. However, the limited interpretability of existing methods presents a major challenge for clinical application. To address this, we propose a novel framework for automatic depression assessment, which employs LLM prompting to extract interpretable factors linked to depression from text and uses linear regression to predict severity scores. We evaluated our approach using a benchmark dataset (DAIC-WOZ; n = 186), predicting Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-8 scores from clinical interview transcripts. Our method identifies key behavioral and linguistic features indicative of depression while also achieving state-of-the-art performance with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.91 on the test set. The resulting model further generalizes to an independent test dataset (E-DAIC; n = 86) with an MAE of 2.86. These findings suggest that interpretable LLM-based approaches hold significant promise for enhancing the clinical utility of automated depression assessment.
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.