ArticlePCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2025
Potential of ChatGPT in youth mental health emergency triage: Comparative analysis with clinicians.
Article in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Service Urgency for Children and Youth: The Development of an Algorithm to Identify Urgent and Emergent Service Users in Children's Mental Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- The pediatric AI readiness framework: bridging evidence to practice in pediatric artificial intelligence.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Large language models, such as GPT-4, are increasingly integrated into healthcare to support clinicians in making informed decisions. Given ChatGPT's potential, it is necessary to explore such applications as a support tool, particularly within mental health telephone triage services. This study evaluates whether GPT Models can accurately triage psychiatric emergency vignettes and compares its performance to that of clinicians. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed to assess the performance of three different GPT-4 models (GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, and GPT-4 Legacy) in psychiatric emergency triage. Twenty-two psychiatric emergency vignettes, intended to represent realistic prehospital triage scenarios, were initially drafted using ChatGPT and subsequently reviewed and refined by the research team to ensure clinical accuracy and relevance. The GPT-4 models independently generated clinical responses to the vignettes over three iterations to ensure consistency. Thereafter, two advanced practice nurse practitioners independently assessed these responses utilizing a 3-point Likert-type scale for the main triage criteria: risk level ( Results: GPT Models had an average admission score of 1.73 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.45; scale: Conclusion: This study indicates that GPT Models may serve as supportive decision-support tools in mental health telephone triage, particularly for psychiatric emergencies. Although response variability across iterations was minimal, most discrepancies in admission decisions were identified as false positives, reflecting that GPT Models may have a tendency to over-triage relative to clinician judgment. Further investigation is needed to establish robust structure to increase alignment with clinical decisions and response relevance in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.