Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42478221›Full record

ArticlePsychological medicine2026

Scalable, context-sensitive psychiatric assessment with large language models and brief diaries.

Whitney R Ringwald, Aman Taxali, Mike Angstadt, Colin E Vize, Chandra Sripada, Aidan G C Wright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Whitney R Ringwaldhttps://ror.org/017zqws13University of Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8883-5963
Aman TaxaliUniversity of Michigan, USA.
Mike AngstadtUniversity of Michigan, USA.
Colin E Vizehttps://ror.org/01an3r305University of Pittsburgh, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3005-0688
Chandra SripadaUniversity of Michigan, USA.
Aidan G C WrightUniversity of Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2369-0601

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate psychiatric assessment requires understanding a person's unique experience within their psychosocial context. Clinical interviews have been the gold standard for assessment as the only methods capable of this complex task, but they are time and resource-intensive. Consequently, psychiatric assessment typically relies on patient report surveys that are decontextualized and narrow in scope. This comprehensiveness-scalability tradeoff is a major bottleneck in studying and treating psychopathology. We propose using large language models (LLMs) to score psychopathology from brief personal narratives as a low-burden, context-sensitive solution.

methodsParticipants (

resultsSupporting convergent and discriminant validity, LLM ratings correlated most strongly with corresponding self-report domains at the between (average convergent

conclusionsAcross multiple forms of validity, we showed that LLMs can assess most major forms of psychopathology from mere minutes of audio. These results support scoring open-ended narratives with LLMs as a scalable, portable method to translate idiographic diagnostic data into standardized psychiatric assessments.

Indexed as

Diaries as TopicMental DisordersAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportYoung Adultambulatory assessmentartificial intelligencedaily diaryhierarchical taxonomy of psychopathologylarge language modelsnatural language processingpsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID42478221
PMCPMC13439252

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.