Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41981155›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

PsychiatryBench: a multi-task benchmark for LLMs in psychiatry.

Aya E Fouda, Abdelrahman A Hassan, Radwa J Hanafy, Mohammed E Fouda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aya E FoudaCompumacy for Artificial Intelligence Solutions, Cairo, Egypt.
Abdelrahman A HassanCompumacy for Artificial Intelligence Solutions, Cairo, Egypt.
Radwa J HanafyCompumacy for Artificial Intelligence Solutions, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohammed E FoudaCompumacy for Artificial Intelligence Solutions, Cairo, Egypt. fouda@compumacy.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential in enhancing psychiatric practice, from improving diagnostic accuracy to streamlining clinical documentation and therapeutic support. However, existing evaluation resources heavily rely on small clinical interview corpora, social media posts, or synthetic dialogs, which limit their clinical validity and fail to capture the full complexity of diagnostic reasoning. In this work, we introduce PsychiatryBench, a rigorously curated benchmark grounded exclusively in authoritative, expert-validated psychiatric textbooks and casebooks. PsychiatryBench comprises eleven distinct question-answering tasks ranging from diagnostic reasoning and treatment planning to longitudinal follow-up, management planning, clinical approach, sequential case analysis, and multiple-choice/extended matching formats totaling 5,188 expert-annotated items. We evaluate a diverse set of frontier LLMs (including Google Gemini, DeepSeek, Sonnet 4.5, and GPT 5) alongside leading open-source medical models such as MedGemma using both conventional metrics and an "LLM-as-judge" similarity scoring framework. Our results reveal substantial gaps in clinical consistency and safety, particularly in multi-turn follow-up and management tasks, underscoring the need for specialized model tuning and more robust evaluation paradigms. PsychiatryBench offers a modular, extensible platform for benchmarking and improving LLM performance in mental health applications.

Identifiers

PMID41981155
PMCPMC13087022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.