Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

PsychBench: A comprehensive and professional benchmark for evaluating the performance of LLM-assisted psychiatric clinical practice

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.01903 v2 pith:7AGBRWMX submitted 2025-02-28 cs.CL cs.AIcs.HC

PsychBench: A comprehensive and professional benchmark for evaluating the performance of LLM-assisted psychiatric clinical practice

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.HC
keywords clinicalllmspsychiatricpotentialcomprehensiveevaluationexistingmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers potential solutions to address problems such as shortage of medical resources and low diagnostic consistency in psychiatric clinical practice. Despite this potential, a robust and comprehensive benchmarking framework to assess the efficacy of LLMs in authentic psychiatric clinical environments is absent. This has impeded the advancement of specialized LLMs tailored to psychiatric applications. In response to this gap, by incorporating clinical demands in psychiatry and clinical data, we proposed a benchmarking system, PsychBench, to evaluate the practical performance of LLMs in psychiatric clinical settings. We conducted a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of 16 LLMs using PsychBench, and investigated the impact of prompt design, chain-of-thought reasoning, input text length, and domain-specific knowledge fine-tuning on model performance. Through detailed error analysis, we identified strengths and potential limitations of the existing models and suggested directions for improvement. Subsequently, a clinical reader study involving 60 psychiatrists of varying seniority was conducted to further explore the practical benefits of existing LLMs as supportive tools for psychiatrists of varying seniority. Through the quantitative and reader evaluation, we show that while existing models demonstrate significant potential, they are not yet adequate as decision-making tools in psychiatric clinical practice. The reader study further indicates that, as an auxiliary tool, LLM could provide particularly notable support for junior psychiatrists, effectively enhancing their work efficiency and overall clinical quality. To promote research in this area, we will make the dataset and evaluation framework publicly available, with the hope of advancing the application of LLMs in psychiatric clinical settings.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. MentalHospital: A Virtual Environment for Evaluating Psychiatric Clinical Encounters

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    EHR-derived standardized patients and dual-track evaluation reveal LLMs trail clinicians by 37.28 points on full psychiatric encounters, with mental-status assessment the main bottleneck.