MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390585437 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1277756

ChatGPT is not ready yet for use in providing mental health assessment and interventions

2024· article· en· W4390585437 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersQatar National Library
KeywordsMental healthPsychological interventionPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Psychiatry is a specialized field of medicine that focuses on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental health disorders. With advancements in technology and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), there has been a growing interest in exploring the potential of AI language models systems, such as Chat Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT), to assist in the field of psychiatry. Objective: Our study aimed to evaluates the effectiveness, reliability and safeness of ChatGPT in assisting patients with mental health problems, and to assess its potential as a collaborative tool for mental health professionals through a simulated interaction with three distinct imaginary patients. Methods: Three imaginary patient scenarios (cases A, B, and C) were created, representing different mental health problems. All three patients present with, and seek to eliminate, the same chief complaint (i.e., difficulty falling asleep and waking up frequently during the night in the last 2°weeks). ChatGPT was engaged as a virtual psychiatric assistant to provide responses and treatment recommendations. Results: In case A, the recommendations were relatively appropriate (albeit non-specific), and could potentially be beneficial for both users and clinicians. However, as complexity of clinical cases increased (cases B and C), the information and recommendations generated by ChatGPT became inappropriate, even dangerous; and the limitations of the program became more glaring. The main strengths of ChatGPT lie in its ability to provide quick responses to user queries and to simulate empathy. One notable limitation is ChatGPT inability to interact with users to collect further information relevant to the diagnosis and management of a patient's clinical condition. Another serious limitation is ChatGPT inability to use critical thinking and clinical judgment to drive patient's management. Conclusion: As for July 2023, ChatGPT failed to give the simple medical advice given certain clinical scenarios. This supports that the quality of ChatGPT-generated content is still far from being a guide for users and professionals to provide accurate mental health information. It remains, therefore, premature to conclude on the usefulness and safety of ChatGPT in mental health practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it