Building Multilingual Datasets for Predicting Mental Health Severity through LLMs: Prospects and Challenges
Authors: Konstantinos Skianis, John Pavlopoulos, A. Seza Doğruöz
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Ioannina, Greece · Department of Informatics, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece · Archimedes/AthenaRC, Greece · LT3, IDLab, Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into various medical fields, including mental health support systems. However, there is a gap in research regarding the effectiveness of LLMs in non-English mental health support applications. To address this problem, we present a novel multilingual adaptation of widely-used mental health datasets, translated from English into six languages (e.g., Greek, Turkish, French, Portuguese, German, and Finnish). This dataset enables a comprehensive evaluation of LLM performance in detecting mental health conditions and assessing their severity across multiple languages. By experimenting with GPT and Llama, we observe considerable variability in performance across languages, despite being evaluated on the same translated dataset. This inconsistency underscores the complexities inherent in multilingual mental health support, where language-specific nuances and mental health data coverage can affect the accuracy of the models. Through comprehensive error analysis, we emphasize the risks of relying exclusively on LLMs in medical settings (e.g., their potential to contribute to misdiagnoses). Moreover, our proposed approach offers significant cost savings for multilingual tasks, presenting a major advantage for broad-scale implementation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustration of our proposed methodology.
Dataset
Reference
Category
#Classes
#Instances
Labels (#Support)
Dep-Sev
Naseem et al. (2022)
Depression
4
3553
Minimum (2587)
Mild (290)
Moderate (394)
Severe (282)
C-ssrs
Gaur et al. (2019)
Suicide
5
500
Supportive (108)
Indicator (99)
Table 1: Benchmark datasets used in our study.
Dataset
Prediction prompt
Dep-Sev
“Categorize the following text with 1 of the 4 depression severity levels (0: Minimum, 1: Mild, 2: Moderate, 3: Severe)”
C-ssrs
“Categorize the content into the following classes based on the user’s mental state: 1. Supportive, 2. Indicator, 3. Ideation, 4. Behavior, 5. Attempt.”
Table 2: The used prediction prompts.
English
Turkish
French
Portuguese
German
Greek
Finnish
Class
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
minimum
0.98
0.14
0.25
0.93
0.03
0.05
0.99
0.15
0.27
0.98
0.11
0.20
0.97
0.24
0.38
0.99
0.07
0.14
0.98
0.08
0.15
mild
0.04
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.17
0.08
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.32
0.12
0.04
0.17
0.06
0.05
0.19
0.08
moderate
0.13
0.22
0.17
0.10
0.62
0.17
0.15
0.39
0.21
0.12
0.28
0.17
0.16
0.42
0.23
0.14
0.55
0.23
0.12
0.31
0.17
severe
0.13
0.71
0.22
0.13
0.39
0.19
0.15
0.58
0.23
0.12
0.74
0.20
0.16
0.35
0.22
0.16
0.28
0.20
0.12
0.55
0.20
Macro avg
0.32
0.30
0.17
0.29
0.26
0.11
0.33
0.32
0.20
0.31
0.30
0.16
0.34
0.33
0.24
0.33
0.27
0.16
0.32
0.28
0.15
Table 3: GPT-3.5 with 0-shot learning on Dep-Severity , measuring Precision, Recall, and F1 per class per language. The last row shows the macro averages. The best F1 per class is shown in bold. The best macro-averaged F1 across languages is underlined.
English
Turkish
French
Portuguese
German
Greek
Finnish
Class
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Supportive
0.27
0.13
0.18
0.40
0.02
0.04
0.30
0.19
0.24
0.36
0.04
0.07
0.38
0.27
0.31
0.39
0.35
0.37
0.29
0.09
0.14
Indicator
0.21
0.76
0.33
0.20
0.95
0.34
0.21
0.72
0.32
0.21
0.92
0.34
0.27
0.57
0.37
0.22
0.49
0.31
0.22
0.44
0.30
Ideation
0.45
0.26
0.33
0.25
0.05
0.08
0.40
0.21
0.28
0.30
0.09
0.14
0.40
0.49
0.44
0.39
0.42
0.40
0.36
0.56
0.44
Behavior
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Attempt
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.02
0.04
1.00
0.04
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Table 4: GPT-3.5-turbo with 0-shot learning on C-ssrs , measuring Precision, Recall, and F1 per class per language. The last row shows the macro averages. The best F1 per class is shown in bold. The best average F1 across languages is underlined.
English
Turkish
French
Portuguese
German
Greek
Finnish
Class
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
minimum
0.97
0.32
0.48
0.97
0.18
0.30
0.97
0.30
0.46
0.97
0.31
0.47
0.96
0.36
0.52
0.98
0.26
0.41
0.97
0.26
0.40
mild
0.07
0.26
0.11
0.04
0.18
0.07
0.05
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.22
0.11
0.06
0.14
0.08
0.05
0.13
0.07
0.05
0.17
0.07
moderate
0.18
0.41
0.25
0.15
0.42
0.23
0.16
0.50
0.24
0.16
0.41
0.23
0.15
0.42
0.22
0.15
0.52
0.23
0.15
0.48
0.23
severe
0.19
0.43
0.26
0.17
0.48
0.25
0.18
0.44
0.26
0.17
0.49
0.25
0.18
0.48
0.26
0.17
0.40
0.24
0.18
0.40
0.25
Macro avg
0.35
0.35
0.27
0.33
0.31
0.21
0.34
0.34
0.26
0.34
0.36
0.27
0.34
0.35
0.27
0.34
0.33
0.24
0.34
0.33
0.24
Table 5: GPT-4o-mini with 0-shot learning on Dep-Severity , measuring Precision, Recall, and F1 per class per language. The last row shows the macro averages. The best F1 per class is shown in bold. The best macro-averaged F1 across languages is underlined.
English
Turkish
French
Portuguese
German
Greek
Finnish
Class
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Supportive
0.40
0.65
0.50
0.40
0.69
0.51
0.43
0.60
0.50
0.49
0.57
0.53
0.44
0.56
0.50
0.45
0.54
0.49
0.39
0.70
0.50
Indicator
0.26
0.52
0.34
0.27
0.36
0.31
0.27
0.44
0.33
0.29
0.55
0.38
0.24
0.46
0.32
0.27
0.53
0.36
0.21
0.29
0.25
Ideation
0.48
0.20
0.29
0.46
0.35
0.40
0.46
0.32
0.37
0.43
0.26
0.33
0.42
0.36
0.39
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.44
0.37
0.40
Behavior
1.00
0.01
0.03
0.31
0.06
0.11
0.67
0.03
0.05
0.50
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.01
0.03
Attempt
0.39
0.47
0.42
0.30
0.22
0.26
0.31
0.44
0.37
0.34
0.62
0.44
0.42
0.22
0.29
0.57
0.09
0.15
0.35
0.13
0.19
Table 6: GPT-4o-mini with 0-shot learning on C-ssrs , measuring Precision, Recall, and F1 per class per language. The last row shows the macro averages. The best F1 per class is shown in bold. The best average F1 across languages is underlined.
English
French
Portuguese
German
Class
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
minimum
0.88
0.12
0.22
0.91
0.23
0.37
0.95
0.18
0.30
0.95
0.25
0.40
mild
0.04
0.20
0.07
0.04
0.13
0.07
0.05
0.14
0.08
0.05
0.15
0.08
moderate
0.15
0.60
0.25
0.16
0.58
0.24
0.14
0.76
0.24
0.14
0.41
0.21
severe
0.18
0.22
0.20
0.12
0.26
0.17
0.20
0.11
0.14
0.13
0.41
0.20
Macro avg
0.32
0.29
0.19
0.31
0.30
0.21
0.34
0.30
0.19
0.32
0.31
0.22
Table 7: Llama3.1 with 0-shot learning on Dep-Severity , measuring Precision, Recall, and F1 per class per language. The last row shows the macro averages. The best F1 per class is shown in bold. The best average F1 across languages is underlined.
English
Turkish
French
Portuguese
German
Greek
Finnish
Class
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
minimum
0.90
0.14
0.25
0.76
0.23
0.36
0.91
0.11
0.19
0.90
0.11
0.20
0.76
0.75
0.76
0.79
0.02
0.05
0.68
0.16
0.25
mild
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.08
0.05
moderate
0.14
0.65
0.23
0.11
0.29
0.16
0.13
0.44
0.20
0.15
0.51
0.23
0.16
0.23
0.19
0.14
0.26
0.18
0.13
0.39
0.19
severe
0.15
0.35
0.21
0.09
0.40
0.14
0.11
0.61
0.19
0.13
0.48
0.20
0.16
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.73
0.17
0.10
0.37
0.16
Macro avg
0.30
0.30
0.18
0.26
0.26
0.18
0.30
0.30
0.16
0.31
0.31
0.18
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.28
0.12
0.23
0.25
0.16
Table 8: GPT-3.5 with 1-shot learning on Dep-Severity by measuring Precision, Recall, and F1 per class per language. The last row shows macro averages for precision, recall, and F1. Best F1 per class is shown in bold. Best average F1 across languages is underlined.
Figure 2: F1 of GPT-3.5 across languages (vertically) per class (box) for Dep-Severity .
Figure 3: F1 of GPT-4o-mini across languages (vertically) per class (box) for C-ssrs .
Turkish
French
Portuguese
German
Greek
Finnish
Class
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Pr
Rec
F1
Supportive
0.43
0.33
0.38
0.37
0.26
0.30
0.44
0.34
0.39
0.37
0.31
0.34
0.36
0.19
0.24
0.40
0.34
0.37
Indicator
0.22
0.77
0.35
0.22
0.75
0.34
0.23
0.76
0.36
0.20
0.64
0.31
0.22
0.79
0.34
0.23
0.74
0.35
Ideation
0.43
0.19
0.27
0.42
0.20
0.27
0.40
0.22
0.28
0.41
0.22
0.29
0.45
0.22
0.29
0.41
0.21
0.28
Behavior
1.00
0.01
0.03
0.67
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.01
0.03
0.50
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
Attempt
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.04
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.02
0.04
1.00
0.04
0.09
Table 9: Back-translation and prediction with GPT-3.5-turbo with 0-shot learning on C-ssrs , measuring Precision, Recall, and F1 per class per language. The last row shows the macro averages. The best F1 per class is shown in bold. The best average F1 across languages is underlined.
Figure 4: An example of translation (English to Greek) from the C-ssrs dataset with GPT-4o-mini.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medical fields. In mental health support, the early identification of linguistic markers associated with mental health conditions can provide valuable support to mental health professionals, and reduce long waiting times for patients. Despite the benefits of LLMs for mental health support, there is limited research on their application in mental health systems for languages other than English. Our study addresses this gap by focusing on the detection of depression severity in Greek through user-generated posts which are automatically translated from English. Our results show that GPT3.5-turbo is not very successful in identifying the severity of depression in English, and it has a varying performance in Greek as well. Our study underscores the necessity for further research, especially in languages with less resources. Also, careful implementation is necessary to ensure that LLMs are used effectively in mental health platforms, and human supervision remains crucial to avoid misdiagnosis.
Konstantinos Skianis, A. Seza Doğruöz, John Pavlopoulos
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Ioannina, Greece · LT3, IDLab, Universiteit Gent, Belgium · Department of Informatics, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece +1
AI and large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools to address global mental health challenges. Despite the global nature of these challenges, there remains a critical shortage of high-quality datasets for training and evaluating such systems. To mitigate this gap, researchers increasingly generate synthetic clinical personas to simulate user data and test digital mental health support systems. However, most validated personas rely on English-centric contexts. This paper investigates whether similar persona-based methods can be used to generate multilingual mental health datasets. We modified nationality and language parameters in personas to generate clinical dialogues in Mandarin, Bengali, and Hindi. We then examined how different LLMs perform when evaluating the depression severity of these generated multilingual datasets against the baseline in English. Our findings indicate that just adding nationality and language parameters in personas might not be adequate, as it can introduce clinical inconsistency across languages. LLM judge models often exhibit inaccuracies in assessing depression severity in non-English texts, with performance varying across different models. This exposes the systemic limitations of applying English-centric personas to multilingual contexts. Ultimately, our work highlights the urgent need for culturally responsive data generation to ensure equitable mental health systems globally.
Multilingual large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in socially sensitive mental health contexts, including support chatbots, screening, and content moderation. This raises a reliability question: do semantically equivalent mental health inputs elicit comparable evaluations across languages, or systematic shifts consistent with language-associated social and cultural contexts? We examine this question in an English-Chinese setting with GPT-4o and Qwen3-32B using a two-level framework: construct-level evaluative orientation, measured by psychometric stigma instruments, and decision-level behavior, measured by binary stigma detection and four-class depression severity classification. Across instruments and models, Chinese prompts elicit higher stigma-related scores than English prompts. At the decision level, Chinese prompts reduce sensitivity to stigmatizing content and produce more conservative depression severity judgments, leading to more under-estimation errors. These findings show that prompt language can shift both evaluative orientation and downstream behavior in LLM-based mental health evaluation. They highlight the need to evaluate multilingual LLMs not only for aggregate performance, but also for whether they apply comparable evaluative standards across languages in socially sensitive domains.
Jiayi Xu, Xiyang Hu
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · Arizona State University