InsightFlow: LLM-Driven Synthesis of Patient Narratives for Mental Health into Causal Models

Large language models can generate fluent clinical case vignettes, but fluency alone does not ensure fidelity to a specifiable clinical structure. We introduce FORMA, a theory-grounded framework that compiles a cognitive model of a disorder into a directed weighted graph, samples a person-specific configuration of that graph, and validates whether the generated vignette preserves the specified components and causal links. We instantiate FORMA on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder using the Ehlers and Clark cognitive model, generating 16,500 vignettes across 500 personas, 11 generation models, and three ablation conditions. Evaluation combines an external edge-recovery probe, two clinical experts, a scaled LLM judge, and a clinician user study with 100 licensed practitioners. The cognitive graph is recoverable from full-condition vignettes (MCC = +0.41, AUC = 0.70) but not from zero-shot generation (MCC = +0.01, AUC = 0.50). Experts rate full vignettes substantially higher than zero-shot alternatives, and clinicians perceive them to be human-written 85% of the time, compared with 22% for zero-shot. FORMA also reduces demographic disparity in perceived quality by 1.5-7x. These results show that cognitive formulation can serve as an auditable specification for scalable synthetic clinical text generation. A repository with the data and code is available online: https://github.com/Amit-Oren/FORMA.

Rising demand for mental health support has increased interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for counseling, but adapting them to this safety-critical domain is hindered by limited real-world data due to privacy constraints. Synthetic datasets provide a promising alternative, but existing approaches often rely on unstructured or semi-structured text inputs and overlook structural dependencies between a client's cognitive, emotional, and behavioral states, leading to psychologically inconsistent and less realistic interactions. We introduce Graph2Counsel, a framework for generating synthetic counseling sessions grounded in Client Psychological Graphs (CPGs) that encode relationships among clients' thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Graph2Counsel uses a structured prompting pipeline guided by counselor strategies and CPG, and explores prompting strategies including CoT and Multi-Agent Feedback. It produces 760 sessions from 76 CPGs across diverse client profiles. In expert evaluation, our dataset outperforms prior datasets on specificity, counselor competence, authenticity, conversational flow, and safety (Krippendorff's $α$ = 0.70). Fine-tuning an open-source model on this dataset improves performance on several metrics on CounselingBench and CounselBench, while matching baselines on others. We further introduce Therapy-Eval, a multi-turn evaluation framework, and demonstrate the effectiveness of our fine-tuned model in realistic therapeutic conversations. We make our code, data and fine-tuned model public.

Modern large language models (LLMs) reach 60-70% diagnostic accuracy on complex clinical case benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish stable clinically-grounded reasoning from pattern matching. We introduce clinical reasoning graphs, structured graph representations extracted from free-text LLM diagnostic traces using a domain-grounded ontology with 5 node types and 7 edge types. We apply this pipeline to 750 traces from five LLMs across 50 New England Journal of Medicine Clinicopathological Conference cases and three prompt conditions, and test whether diagnostic traces show stable structured reasoning patterns, or diagnostic schemas, for clinically similar cases. We operationalize this as higher graph similarity among clinically similar cases than among clinically dissimilar ones. Across 15 model-condition comparisons, within-cluster and between-cluster composite similarity are nearly equal, and no comparison survives multiple-testing correction; a component-level analysis finds any residual content signal far below schema scale. Graph similarity is also nearly identical for pairs of models that are both correct (0.488) and both incorrect (0.484), suggesting that graph structure captures a dimension not reflected in diagnostic accuracy. Structured reflection prompting increases explicit discriminating-feature analysis within traces (+33%) but does not increase cross-case consistency. These results show diagnostic competence without schema-scale reasoning consistency, and indicate that final-answer accuracy should be complemented by process-level evaluation. We release the ontology, extraction pipeline, validation protocol, and the extracted reasoning graphs and similarity artifacts as resources for structured evaluation of LLM clinical reasoning.