Large Language Models for Mental Health Applications: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) are advanced artificial neural networks trained on extensive datasets to accurately understand and generate natural language. While they have received much attention and demonstrated potential in digital health, their application in mental health, particularly in clinical settings, has generated considerable debate. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to critically assess the use of LLMs in mental health, specifically focusing on their applicability and efficacy in early screening, digital interventions, and clinical settings. By systematically collating and assessing the evidence from current studies, our work analyzes models, methodologies, data sources, and outcomes, thereby highlighting the potential of LLMs in mental health, the challenges they present, and the prospects for their clinical use. METHODS: Adhering to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, this review searched 5 open-access databases: MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), IEEE Xplore, Scopus, JMIR, and ACM Digital Library. Keywords used were (mental health OR mental illness OR mental disorder OR psychiatry) AND (large language models). This study included articles published between January 1, 2017, and April 30, 2024, and excluded articles published in languages other than English. RESULTS: In total, 40 articles were evaluated, including 15 (38%) articles on mental health conditions and suicidal ideation detection through text analysis, 7 (18%) on the use of LLMs as mental health conversational agents, and 18 (45%) on other applications and evaluations of LLMs in mental health. LLMs show good effectiveness in detecting mental health issues and providing accessible, destigmatized eHealth services. However, assessments also indicate that the current risks associated with clinical use might surpass their benefits. These risks include inconsistencies in generated text; the production of hallucinations; and the absence of a comprehensive, benchmarked ethical framework. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review examines the clinical applications of LLMs in mental health, highlighting their potential and inherent risks. The study identifies several issues: the lack of multilingual datasets annotated by experts, concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of generated content, challenges in interpretability due to the "black box" nature of LLMs, and ongoing ethical dilemmas. These ethical concerns include the absence of a clear, benchmarked ethical framework; data privacy issues; and the potential for overreliance on LLMs by both physicians and patients, which could compromise traditional medical practices. As a result, LLMs should not be considered substitutes for professional mental health services. However, the rapid development of LLMs underscores their potential as valuable clinical aids, emphasizing the need for continued research and development in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024508617; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=508617.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,112 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,015 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».