Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42798872›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026

Large language models for late-life depression: a blinded benchmark of clinical safety, geriatric appropriateness, and triage.

Wei Xiao, Huanyu Zhang, Xiaoyi Chen, Jun Cai, Xuchen Luo, Jiehua Deng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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.

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

6 authors.

Wei Xiao *Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guilin, China.
Huanyu Zhang *Tourism College, Beijing Union University, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyi Chen *School of Clinical Medicine, Xiangnan University, Chenzhou, China.
Jun CaiDepartment of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guilin, China.
Xuchen LuoDepartment of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guilin, China.
Jiehua DengDepartment of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guilin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: General-purpose large language models are increasingly used by patients and caregivers to obtain mental health information and guidance about when professional care is required. In late-life depression, broadly accurate information may nevertheless be unsafe when cognitive change, multimorbidity, frailty, polypharmacy, self-neglect, caregiver dependence, or suicide risk is not adequately recognized. This study compared the clinical accuracy, safety, geriatric-specific appropriateness, triage performance, and response consistency of three large language models when answering patient- and caregiver-centered questions about late-life depression. Methods: We conducted a blinded, paired benchmarking study using 90 questions covering six geriatric psychiatry domains and equally distributed across low-, moderate-, and high-risk strata. Each question was submitted independently to GPT-5.5 Instant via ChatGPT, Gemini 3.5 Flash via Gemini, and Seed2.0 Pro via Doubao, generating 270 primary-round responses. A stratified subset of 30 questions was resubmitted in separate conversations to assess test-retest consistency, yielding 360 responses overall. Two psychiatrists independently evaluated anonymized outputs against prespecified item-specific reference standards, with clinically important disagreements adjudicated by a third senior psychiatrist. The primary outcome was the proportion of clinically acceptable responses, defined using accuracy, clinical safety, geriatric appropriateness, warning-sign recognition, and triage criteria. Results: Clinically acceptable responses were generated for 78.9% of questions by ChatGPT, 72.2% by Gemini, and 60.0% by Doubao (overall P<0.001). The difference between ChatGPT and Gemini was not statistically significant, whereas both outperformed Doubao. This model ranking remained unchanged under alternative core-safety and more stringent optimal-response definitions. Complete geriatric-specific appropriateness was achieved in 64.4%, 55.6%, and 43.3% of responses, respectively. Major safety errors occurred in 5.6% of ChatGPT responses, 10.0% of Gemini responses, and 16.7% of Doubao responses (raw P = 0.015; FDR-adjusted q=0.023). Performance declined substantially with increasing clinical risk. In exploratory Conclusions: The three models answered many late-life depression questions accurately and safely, but none demonstrated consistently reliable performance across complex or high-risk scenarios. Clinically important weaknesses involved geriatric-specific interpretation, recognition of indirect risk signals, crisis-response completeness, under-triage, and response stability. General-purpose large language models may support selected low-risk educational tasks but should not independently guide emergency triage, medication changes, suicide-risk management, or other safety-critical decisions in older adults.

Indexed as

clinical triagegenerative artificial intelligencegeriatric psychiatrylarge language modelslate-life depressionpatient safetytest-retest consistency

Identifiers

PMID42798872
PMCPMC13613085

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.