The Role of Humanization and Robustness of Large Language Models in Conversational Artificial Intelligence for Individuals With Depression: A Critical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Large language model (LLM)-powered services are gaining popularity in various applications due to their exceptional performance in many tasks, such as sentiment analysis and answering questions. Recently, research has been exploring their potential use in digital health contexts, particularly in the mental health domain. However, implementing LLM-enhanced conversational artificial intelligence (CAI) presents significant ethical, technical, and clinical challenges. In this viewpoint paper, we discuss 2 challenges that affect the use of LLM-enhanced CAI for individuals with mental health issues, focusing on the use case of patients with depression: the tendency to humanize LLM-enhanced CAI and their lack of contextualized robustness. Our approach is interdisciplinary, relying on considerations from philosophy, psychology, and computer science. We argue that the humanization of LLM-enhanced CAI hinges on the reflection of what it means to simulate "human-like" features with LLMs and what role these systems should play in interactions with humans. Further, ensuring the contextualization of the robustness of LLMs requires considering the specificities of language production in individuals with depression, as well as its evolution over time. Finally, we provide a series of recommendations to foster the responsible design and deployment of LLM-enhanced CAI for the therapeutic support of individuals with depression.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".