ArticleAlpha psychiatry2026
A Cautious Integration With AI in the Clinic: A Standardized-Patient Pilot Study of ChatGPT's Reliability in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Scoring.
Article in Alpha psychiatry, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) integration offers significant potential to improve mental healthcare, however, the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in performing nuanced clinical tasks remains an important and largely unanswered question. This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in scoring the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) compared with expert raters using standardized patients (SPs). Methods: Three senior mental health experts created and portrayed scenarios for ten SPs representing diverse depressive symptom profiles. Recorded interviews were transcribed and used as input for ChatGPT-4o. HAMD-21 scores generated by ChatGPT were compared with those assigned by expert raters and with predefined script-based reference scores. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and differences between raters were evaluated using Steiger's tests. Results: ChatGPT and the expert raters achieved good-to-excellent reliability for total HAMD-21 scores (experts: ICC = 0.9921; ChatGPT: ICC = 0.9739). However, expert raters achieved perfect ICCs on 11 individual items, whereas ChatGPT achieved perfect agreement on only 2 items. Steiger's test demonstrated that experts significantly outperformed ChatGPT on 10 individual items as well as on total scores (Z = 1.931, Conclusions: ChatGPT demonstrated excellent agreement on total HAMD-21 scores in structured, text-based depression assessments, supporting the potential role of LLMs as adjunctive tools for standardized depression severity evaluation. However, item-level discrepancies and systematic scoring errors indicate that human oversight remains essential for clinically nuanced interpretation.
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.