ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025
Can generative AI assess PTSD? A clinical validation study of transcribed and direct audio input modalities.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Scalable, context-sensitive psychiatric assessment with large language models and brief diaries.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) remains underdiagnosed due to barriers such as limited access to mental health professionals and resource constraints. While generative artificial intelligence (AI) shows potential in mental health applications, little information is available on its ability to assess PTSD, particularly through direct audio input. We aimed to examine the ability of three AI-based input modalities to support clinical diagnosis of PTSD: Claude 3.5 Sonnet with transcribed input, Gemini 1.5 Pro with transcribed input and Gemini 1.5 Pro with direct audio input. Methods and analysis: Participants were adults with trauma histories who completed clinical interviews. Both generative AI and clinicians produced continuous severity scores and binary diagnoses. For diagnostic prediction, AI-generated severity scores were compared with binary clinician diagnoses using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to compute area under the curve (AUC). Reliability between AI and clinician severity scores was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Accuracy was calculated by comparing AI-generated diagnoses to clinician-rated diagnoses. Results: The study included 53 participants (mean age=36.9 years, SD=10.6); 47 were female (88.7%). 37 participants (69.8%) met PTSD criteria based on clinician diagnosis. AUCs, ICCs and accuracies (95% CIs) were: Claude transcribed input, 0.94 (0.87 to 1.00), 0.82 (0.71 to 0.92) and 0.89 (0.78 to 0.95); Gemini transcribed input, 0.93 (0.85 to 1.00), 0.83 (0.73 to 0.90) and 0.85 (0.74 to 0.93); Gemini direct audio input, 0.93 (0.84 to 1.00), 0.89 (0.81 to 0.93) and 0.80 (0.68 to 0.90). Conclusions: Generative AI may support PTSD diagnosis and expand access to care. Future applications should be developed with an emphasis on privacy-preserving deployment.
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.