ArticleScience progress
Improving clinical reliability of LLM reasoning for depression assessment via structured generation and GRPO.
Article in Science progress. 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
ObjectiveDigital mental health screening is increasingly explored through the use of AI systems. Yet, most models provide limited insight into how predictions are derived, restricting clinical trust and patient-centered adoption. We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate structured DSM-5-aligned rationales for depression assessment when trained with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), a reinforcement learning method that encourages outputs aligned with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.MethodsWe fine-tuned LLMs (1B-27B parameters) on the ReDSM5 dataset, covering 1,484 Reddit posts annotated by a licensed psychologist for DSM-5 depressive symptoms and accompanied by expert rationales. We compared standard Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with GRPO-based optimization using a composite reward integrating symptom classification accuracy and the quality of generated reasoning judged against clinical rationales.ResultsGRPO consistently improved symptom detection over SFT, with relative gains exceeding 10% for mid-sized models and weighted F1 scores above 0.60. Models trained to generate structured DSM-5-aligned rationales exhibited additional performance boosts (0.09-0.39 F1), particularly for complex symptoms requiring complex contextual interpretation. Qualitative analysis shows that GRPO encourages models to reference symptom-relevant evidence rather than relying on superficial cues.ConclusionsGRPO enables LLMs to produce clinically grounded explanations while improving classification accuracy, representing a promising direction for interpretable AI in social media-based mental health screening, with potential to support patient-centered applications pending clinical validation.
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.