ArticlePloS one2026
Development, system design, safety, and performance metrics of a conversational agent for reducing depressive and anxious symptoms based on a large language model: The MHAI study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConversational agents based on large language models (LLMs) have shown moderate efficacy in reducing depressive and anxiety symptoms. However, most existing evaluations lack methodological transparency, rely on closed-source models, and show limited standardization in performance and safety assessment.
objectiveWe have two study objectives: (1) to develop an LLM-based conversational agent through system design analysis and initial functionality testing, and (2) to evaluate its safety and performance through standardized assessment in controlled simulated interactions focused on depression and anxiety of two LLMs (GPT-4o and Llama 3.1-8B).
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in two phases. First, we developed a mental health platform integrating a conversational agent with functionalities including personalized context, pretrained therapeutic modules, self-assessment tools, and an emergency alert system. Second, we evaluated the agent's responses in simulated interactions based on predefined user personas for each LLM. Four expert raters assessed 816 interaction pairs using a 5-point Likert scale evaluating tone, clarity, domain accuracy (correctness), robustness, completeness, boundaries, target language, and safety. In addition, we use performance metrics based on numerical criteria such as cost, response length, and number of tokens. Mixed-effects models were used to compare LLM performance and assess metric interrelations.
resultsFirst, we developed a web-based mental health platform using a user-centered design, structured into frontend, backend, and database layers. The system integrates therapeutic chat (GPT-4o and Llama 3.1-8B), psychological assessments (PHQ-9, GAD-7), CBT-based tasks, and an emergency alert system. The platform supports secure user authentication, data encryption, multilingual access, and session tracking. Second, GPT-4o outperformed Llama 3.1-8B in both performance metrics based on numerical criteria and Likert scale criteria, generating longer and more lexically diverse responses, using more tokens, and scoring higher in clarity, robustness, completeness, boundaries, and target language. However, it incurred higher costs, with no significant differences in tone, accuracy, or safety.
conclusionOur study presents a conversational agent with multiple functionalities and shows that GPT-4o outperforms Llama 3.1-8B in performance, although at a higher cost. This platform could be used in future clinical trials or real-world implementation studies.
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.