ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Depression subtype classification from social media posts: few-shot prompting vs. fine-tuning of large language models.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social media provides timely proxy signals of mental health, but reliable tweet-level classification of depression subtypes remains challenging due to short, noisy text, overlapping symptomatology, and labeling bias. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in mental health for tasks such as symptom extraction, risk screening, and triage, yet their reliability for fine-grained depression subtype classification from brief social media posts remains underexplored. Objective: We benchmarked few-shot, prompt-only LLMs against parameter-efficient fine-tuned encoders for identifying depression subtypes in posts on X (formerly Twitter). Methods: We used a curated dataset of 14,983 English-language tweets stratified into six clinically grounded categories: five depression subtypes (postpartum, major, bipolar, psychotic, atypical) and a no-depression class. We compared (i) instruction-tuned causal LLMs in a few-shot setting and (ii) supervised fine-tuning of transformer encoders (e.g., RoBERTa, DeBERTa, BERTweet) under identical splits and metrics. The primary evaluation metric was macro-F1 (with accuracy, precision, recall as secondary). We also report per-class precision, recall, and F1 scores, along with confusion matrices, for the best-performing model from each model family. Results: Few-shot LLMs achieved macro-F1 = 0.73-0.77 (best: Llama-3-8B, accuracy 0.75). Fine-tuned encoders consistently outperformed prompt-only models, reaching macro-F1 = 0.94-0.96 (best: RoBERTa-large, accuracy 0.954). Relative improvements were largest for the clinically challenging classes. Fine-tuning increased F1 for postpartum and psychotic subtypes to ≈0.99 (substantially above few-shot) and boosted major-depression recall from ≈0.53-0.60 to ≈0.95-0.97. Error analyses showed prompt-only models frequently misclassified major and atypical depression as bipolar, patterns substantially reduced by fine-tuning. Conclusions: On tweet-level depression subtyping, task-specific adaptation via fine-tuning yields substantially higher and more stable performance than few-shot prompting, particularly for nuanced, clinically anchored classes. These findings recommend fine-tuned encoders as strong, compute-efficient baselines for depression subtype classification from social media.
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.