Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42651492›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Can Large Language Models Support University Counseling? Evidence from Perceived Counseling Alliance, Disclosure Willingness, and Risk Recognition.

Jianshan Cheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Jianshan ChengSchool of Foreign Languages, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2357-0500

Funding

Hubei Provincial Department of Education 25Z048Wuhan Institute of Technology K2025124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid expansion of large language models (LLMs) has created new opportunities for university mental health services, particularly in contexts where counseling demand exceeds available professional resources. This study examined the application of an LLM-based intelligent agent in Chinese university counseling settings, focusing on three key outcomes: perceived counseling alliance, disclosure willingness, and risk recognition. Using a randomized between-subjects experimental design, 388 valid responses were collected from university students and assigned to either an LLM-based counseling condition or a control condition. The LLM-based agent significantly improved perceived counseling alliance and disclosure willingness, and perceived counseling alliance partially mediated the relationship between condition and disclosure. Scenario-based analyses further showed that the LLM-based agent improved general risk recognition and slightly enhanced sensitivity to high-risk cues, although performance remained more limited for crisis-level disclosures. These findings suggest that LLM-based agents are most effective as front-end support tools that facilitate engagement and emotional expression rather than as autonomous crisis detectors. In the context of Chinese university counseling, the study supports a complementary human-AI model in which intelligent agents lower barriers to help-seeking while trained counselors retain responsibility for risk assessment and intervention. Overall, the results contribute to digital mental health research by clarifying both the relational benefits and safety boundaries of LLM-supported counseling.

Indexed as

Chinese university studentslarge language modelsperceived counseling alliancerisk recognitionself-disclosureuniversity counseling

Identifiers

PMID42651492
PMCPMC13509560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.