Automated ICD Classification of Psychiatric Diagnoses: From Classical NLP to Large Language Models

As demand for mental health care outpaces clinician-delivered assessment, scalable screening tools are increasingly needed. Large language models (LLMs) may identify psychiatric risk from patient narratives, but their reliability across diagnoses, demographic subgroups, and evidence-use patterns remains uncertain. We introduce a SCID-anchored benchmark of 555 semi-structured experiential interviews paired with diagnostic reference labels for anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and any current mental health disorder. Using zero-shot task-specific prompting, we evaluated five state-of-the-art LLMs and examined whether false-negative errors reflected missed psychiatric evidence or differential weighting of symptom, functional-impairment, and protective-context cues. Performance varied across tasks and models, with accuracy ranging from 0.49 to 0.86 and Matthews correlation coefficients from 0.16 to 0.38. GPT-4.1 Mini and GPT-5 Mini showed the most consistent disorder-specific accuracy. Subgroup analyses found higher depression-classification accuracy among male than female participants, no consistent age-related pattern, and modest non-uniform variation across race strata. Evidence-integration analyses showed that false-negative anxiety and PTSD classifications often contained explicit symptom evidence but were accompanied by preserved functioning, coping ability, or social support. Functional-impairment evidence shifted model outputs toward positive classifications, whereas protective-context evidence shifted outputs away. These findings suggest that LLMs may support scalable psychiatric screening, but their tendency to discount symptom evidence in the presence of preserved functioning or protective context requires careful validation before clinical deployment.

Automatic Depression Detection (ADD) from clinical interviews is a pivotal task in computational mental health, yet it remains challenging due to two critical obstacles: 1) difficulty in modeling complex but sparsely distributed depression clues within lengthy, multi-topic clinical interviews, leading to superficial and unreliable reasoning; 2) scarcity of labeled data due to clinical privacy, together with high cost of training and fine-tuning, limiting the deployment of supervised ADD systems. To jointly address these challenges, we propose Dep-LLM, a training-free framework that mirrors the step-by-step reasoning of clinical psychiatrists and operates entirely on frozen off-the-shelf foundation LLMs. Dep-LLM comprises three stages. First, a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Depression Multi-factor Analysis module structurally decomposes the long dialogue into five clinically aligned themes and produces evidence-grounded rationales, effectively handling long-context dependencies. Second, we introduce Confidence Analysis and Modulation module that quantifies the epistemic reliability from token-level entropy of each rationale and applies an intra-label and inter-theme modulation that amplifies trustworthy signals while suppressing uncertain ones without extra training. Third, a Collaborative Multi-factor Prediction module dynamically integrates multi-factor signals weighted by confidence into the final diagnosis. Extensive experiments on the DAIC-WOZ and E-DAIC datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of Dep-LLM: it surpasses zero-shot baseline on nearly all 21 foundation LLMs across 9 metrics such as accuracy, macro F1 and weighted-average F1, and further outperforms state-of-the-art supervised domain-specific LLMs as well as the latest closed-source commercial LLMs, while requiring no extra training.

Automated International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding is a core medical-coding task for billing, epidemiology, and clinical decision support. Generative large language models (LLMs) are often reported as weak medical coders, but this finding mainly comes from inference-time settings such as prompting, retrieval, reranking, or tool use, leaving the role of task-specific post-training underexplored. We present a controlled empirical study of post-training for generative ICD coding, comparing discriminative baselines with LLM coders across prompting, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning under a common protocol and metric set. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate RL-based post-training for generative LLM coders in ICD coding. We further introduce PHI, a diagnostic curriculum that extends GRPO to refine missed-code cases. Our results show that prompting-only evaluation substantially underestimates the potential of LLMs for ICD coding. SFT provides the main capability jump, GRPO further improves code-set prediction beyond SFT, and PHI provides targeted gains on macro-level performance. These findings suggest that the main bottleneck is not the generative formulation alone, but how the model is adapted and optimized for full-taxonomy recall. We release our code, data splits, and checkpoints at https://github.com/AlexandreWANG915/LLM4ICD.