ArticleCogent mental health2026
Exploring the application of large language models in coding the experiencing scale (EXP).
Article in Cogent mental 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychotherapy process measures like the Experiencing Scale (EXP) offer valuable insight into clinical interactions but are time-intensive to code. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have the potential to streamline this process, but empirical validation is nascent. This exploratory study aimed to provide a proof-of-concept coding the EXP using ChatGPT with special attention to ethical considerations, limitations, and future directions. ChatGPT was used to code 79 psychotherapy transcripts drawn from the EXP manual. Multiple models of ChatGPT were tested using varied few-shot learning prompt engineering protocols. Data collection occurred in three phases, during which models rated both modal and peak EXP scores for all transcripts. ChatGPT demonstrated moderate agreement with manual reference ratings. An efficient configuration (o3-mini, 5-shot prompting) yielded moderate reliability for both modal EXP scores (ICC[3,1] = .67, 95% CI [.53, .79]) and peak EXP scores (ICC[3,1] = .71, 95% CI [.58, .81]). LLMs may feasibly augment or replace human EXP coders under certain conditions. However, evidence is preliminary and ethical and technical limitations remain. Future research should validate the present methodology using out-of-manual data, assess potential pretraining exposure, and explore locally hosted LLM applications to mitigate privacy concerns.
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.