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.
Large language models are increasingly deployed to simulate patients for clinical training, research, and mental health tools, yet population-level validity remains largely untested. We introduce PsychBench, the first epidemiological audit of LLM patient simulation: 28,800 profiles from four frontier models (GPT-4o-mini, DeepSeek-V3, Gemini-3-Flash, GLM-4.7) evaluated against NHANES and NESARC-III baselines across 120 intersectional cohorts. The central finding is a coherence-fidelity dissociation: models produce clinically plausible individuals while misrepresenting the populations they are drawn from. Variance compression ranges from 14 percent (GLM-4.7) to 62 percent (DeepSeek-V3), eliminating the distributional tails of clinical reality. Despite test-retest correlations above r = 0.90, 36.66 percent of cases cross diagnostic thresholds between runs. Symptom correlation matrices diverge across demographic groups beyond split-half noise, with transgender populations diverging three to five times more than racial differences. Calibration bias is systematic and asymmetric. Models overestimate depression severity for most groups by 3.6 to 6.1 points (Cohen d = 1.13 to 1.91), consistent with training on clinical corpora with elevated base rates. For transgender women the direction inverts: models capture only 8 to 46 percent of documented minority stress elevation, yielding a -5.42 residual (d = -1.55). Models also attribute irritability to Black men and fatigue to women beyond matched controls, encoding racialized and gendered assumptions. Patterns replicate across US and Chinese architectures, indicating failures tied to current training paradigms rather than isolated implementations. For most users, LLM mental health tools risk pathologizing ordinary distress; for transgender users, algorithmic erasure of genuine need. The patients look right. They do not represent real populations.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision support in healthcare, but clinical evidence is often incomplete or evolving. When the available information is insufficient to support a reliable answer, models should request clarification or abstain rather than provide unsupported responses. Existing medical benchmarks, however, typically assume that complete information is available upfront. We introduce Safe-Psych, a sequential benchmark for evaluating how LLMs handle evolving diagnostic uncertainty in clinical psychiatry. Safe-Psych contains over 1,000 real-world psychiatric clinical notes segmented to simulate incremental evidence disclosure, with psychiatrist-derived action labels at each stage: DIAGNOSE, CLARIFY, or ABSTAIN. We evaluate multiple state-of-the-art LLMs in full-information and sequential settings. Our findings show that capability does not ensure calibration: even strong models struggle under incomplete clinical information, with under-abstention exceeding 60% for most models and safety-aware prompting reducing premature commitment only by shifting errors toward excessive abstention. In sequential evaluation, models frequently diagnose before sufficient evidence is available and rarely seek clarification unless explicitly prompted; these premature diagnoses are less accurate than on-time diagnoses. Overall, Safe-Psych reveals a limitation across the evaluated models: recognizing when clinical evidence is incomplete and additional information is needed. We release Safe-Psych to support research on improving LLM safety in healthcare.
LLMs can estimate Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores from speech in a zero-shot manner, but clinical deployment requires reliability across three dimensions: intra-model consistency, ASR robustness, and evidence faithfulness. We evaluate three LLMs (Phi-4, Gemma-2-9B, and Llama-3.1-8B) on 111 English-speaking participants using ground-truth transcripts and three Whisper ASR variants (Large, Medium, Small), with three independent runs per model-condition pair. We find that (i) Phi-4 and Gemma-2-9B achieve excellent intra-model consistency (ICC > 0.89) with minimal degradation under ASR; (ii) Llama-3.1-8B shows ASR-fragile consistency, with ICC dropping from 0.82 to 0.36 at 10% WER; (iii) predictive validity is largely preserved under ASR for robust models; and (iv) keyword groundedness exceeds 93% for Phi-4 and Gemma-2-9B but falls to 77-81% for Llama-3.1-8B. Inter-model keyword agreement is far lower than score-level agreement, revealing a score-evidence dissociation with implications for clinical interpretability.
Erfan Loweimi, Sofia de la Fuente Garcia, Samira Loveymi +2