ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Large language models for psychosocial risk assessment: A multi-method evaluation across suicide, intimate partner violence, and substance misuse.
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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in intimate partner violence risk pathways: a PRISMA-ScR review of femicide prevention and medico-legal accountability.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychosocial risk assessment is a cornerstone of mental health care, yet remains resource-intensive and inconsistently delivered across domains such as suicide, intimate partner violence (IPV), and substance misuse. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) raise the possibility of scalable, conversational agents capable of detecting and evaluating psychosocial risk. Across three interlinked studies, we evaluated the performance of LLMs in this context. Study 1 benchmarked GPT-4 and Claude 3 Sonnet against vignettes constructed from participants' lived-experience, finding high accuracy in detecting risk domains and substantial agreement with participant-rated severity, though suicidality proved more challenging than IPV or substance misuse. Study 2 examined participants' perceptions of LLM-generated responses, revealing that most judged them accurate, empathic, and clinically useful, with no differences across models or domains. Study 3 implemented a supervised, three-agent GPT-4o-based chatbot system integrating one chatbot as a therapeutic agent, a supervisor for risk detection, and a JSON-based assessor for structured evaluation. The therapeutic agent chatbot was successfully completed full risk assessments most of the time while maintaining therapeutic quality. Together, these studies suggest that LLMs can contribute to psychosocial risk detection and structured assessment under controlled conditions, while underscoring the need for careful supervision, rigorous validation, and clearly defined boundaries before consideration of real-world clinical deployment.
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.