Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Unveiling the Landscape of Clinical Depression Assessment: From Behavioral Signatures to Psychiatric Reasoning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that C-MIND, a new clinically diagnosed multimodal dataset, shows audio and video carry the most diagnostic signal, the Picture Description Task is the best probe, and psychiatric-reasoning prompts lift LLM diagnosis by up

desk verdict C-MIND is a genuinely useful clinical dataset, but the empirical rankings and the 'consistent' LLM gain claim rest on a single split with no uncertainty quantification, so treat the headline numbers as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04531 v1 pith:A27GHL6Q submitted 2025-08-06 cs.CL cs.AI

Zhuang Chen , Guanqun Bi , Wen Zhang , Jiawei Hu , Aoyun Wang , Xiyao Xiao , Kun Feng , Minlie Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords depressionassessmentC-MINDdatasetmultimodaldiagnosisDSM-5clinicallabelspsychiatrictaskslargelanguagemodelsreasoningMacro-F1
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish which behavioral signals, collected under realistic clinical conditions, actually carry depression diagnosis, and whether LLMs can reason like clinicians once they are told what to look for. It introduces C-MIND, a balanced 169-participant cohort (86 with major depressive disorder, 83 healthy controls) recruited from real hospital visits, with DSM-5 expert diagnoses, three structured psychiatric tasks (Interview, Picture Description, Verbal Fluency), and four synchronized modalities (audio, video, transcript, fNIRS). Using classical models, the paper reports that audio and video are the most informative modalities, the Picture Description Task is the strongest probe (top Macro-F1 of 94.10%), and fusing tasks or modalities improves both accuracy and stability. It then reports that seven leading LLMs, even with a psychiatric-reasoning prompt, underperform a supervised transcript model, but that the prompt consistently improves LLM Macro-F1 by up to 10%. If these claims hold, C-MIND becomes a reusable benchmark and the rankings become concrete design guidance for future automated depression assessment.

What carries the argument

The central object is C-MIND, a balanced 169-subject cohort (86 MDD, 83 HC) built from real hospital visits, where each participant receives a DSM-5 clinical diagnosis and performs three psychiatric tasks—Interview, Picture Description, and Verbal Fluency—while audio, video, transcript, and fNIRS are recorded synchronously. Two mechanisms carry the argument. First, a task/modality modeling pipeline encodes each task-modality pair with classical features (eGeMAPS, OpenFace, DeBERTa, fNIRS statistics) and foundation-model embeddings, trains six classifiers (LSTM, CNN, MLP, k-NN, Random Forest, SVM), and ranks pairs and fusions by Macro-F1. Second, a psychiatric reasoning prompt injects task-ty

What would settle it

Have a separate pair of psychiatrists, blinded to the original diagnosis, re-interview a random subset of C-MIND participants and measure inter-rater agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa); low agreement means the gold-standard labels are noisy and the task/modality ordering and LLM gains collapse. Alternatively, re-run the Table 3 comparisons with repeated cross-validation and bootstrap confidence intervals: if the audio-over-text and PDT-over-INT orderings are not statistically significant, the landscape claim is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an empirical map of where depression reveals itself: audio and video features beat transcript and fNIRS features across the board, and the Picture Description Task is the single best elicitation probe, reaching 94.10% Macro-F1 with audio. Combining modalities (e.g., Audio+Video) or tasks (e.g., Interview+PDT) raises performance and reduces variance, so the paper argues holistic assessment is more robust than any one channel. It also shows that prompting-based LLM diagnosis is not yet competitive with supervised discriminative models—the best transcript-only LLM with psychiatric reasoning reaches 60.53% Macro-F1 versus 68.24% for a supervised model o

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two psychiatrists' DSM-5 diagnosis is an error-free gold standard and that a single 6:2:2 split of 169 subjects is enough to order methods; no inter-rater reliability, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, so label noise or split luck would propagate into every ranking and every LLM number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future automated depression assessment systems should record audio and video and use the Picture Description Task, or its combination with the Interview, as the primary elicitation probe.
  • Combining modalities (e.g., Audio+Video) or tasks (e.g., Interview+PDT) yields higher Macro-F1 and lower variance, so assessment design should aggregate evidence rather than rely on a single channel.
  • LLM-based diagnosis via prompting is currently below supervised discriminative models, so clinical deployment should treat LLMs as assistive reasoning aids, not as the predictor.
  • Structured psychiatric reasoning prompts are a cheap, consistent way to improve LLM diagnostic performance by up to 10% Macro-F1, but conflicts with models that have their own internal reasoning protocols can reduce gains.
  • C-MIND's clinically validated labels, medical records, and eight psychometric questionnaires make it a reusable benchmark for future work on diagnosis subtyping and severity prediction, not just binary detection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an extension, if the audio/video dominance reflects depression's behavioral expression rather than this hospital's recording setup, the same task battery might transfer to remote or smartphone-based screening; the paper provides no cross-site evidence for that transfer.
  • Because the psychiatric-reasoning prompt encodes only coarse task expectations, a natural extension is richer clinical knowledge (e.g., differential diagnosis, severity, comorbidity) in the prompt; the paper leaves this untested.
  • The fNIRS modality may be underrated by the paper's decision to use only statistical features, since no pretrained fNIRS encoder exists; a learned representation could change the modality ranking.
  • The unused questionnaire scores (HAMD, HAMA, SDS, etc.) allow a testable extension: replacing the binary DSM-5 label with dimensional severity scores might refine or overturn the reported ordering.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces C-MIND, a clinically grounded multimodal depression assessment dataset collected from 169 participants (86 with MDD, 83 healthy controls) at a hospital, with three psychiatric tasks (Interview, Picture Description, Verbal Fluency) and four synchronized modalities (audio, video, transcript, fNIRS), where the gold-standard label comes from a DSM-5 clinical diagnosis by psychiatrists. Using C-MIND, the authors train classical classifiers (LSTM, CNN, MLP, k-NN, RF, SVM) with two feature sets (classical and foundation-model) to quantify the diagnostic value of each task-modality combination and of task/modality fusions, and they evaluate seven LLMs under direct, vanilla-reasoning, and psychiatric-reasoning prompts. The central claims are that audio and video are the most informative modalities, the Picture Description Task is the most effective probe (top Macro-F1 94.10%), fusing tasks or modalities improves robustness, and injecting structured clinical expertise into LLM prompts 'consistently improves' diagnostic performance by up to 10% Macro-F1.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, C-MIND would be a valuable resource: it is larger and more balanced than most clinically labeled depression datasets, includes multiple structured tasks and synchronized modalities, and provides a reproducible benchmark for both classical multimodal models and LLM-based psychiatric reasoning. The behavioral-signature analysis and the psychiatric-reasoning prompt are potentially useful design guidelines. The paper is also transparent in providing an extensive appendix with protocol details, feature extraction, model architectures, and LLM prompts. However, the significance of the conclusions is currently limited by the absence of any statistical characterization of the core comparisons: the task/modality ordering and the 'consistent' LLM gains rest on a single data split with no confidence intervals or significance tests, and one of the headline claims is internally contradicted by the paper's own Table 9.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 3, Figure 4, Tables 7–8] The central task/modality ranking rests on a single 6:2:2 split of 169 subjects, giving a test set of roughly 34 subjects. No confidence intervals, bootstrap intervals, or paired significance tests are reported anywhere for Tables 3, 7, or 8 or Figure 4. Averaging over five seeds changes only classifier initialization, not the data-split distribution. Under this protocol, the top audio/PDT Macro-F1 of 94.10 vs audio/INT 91.17 (Table 3) is a difference on the order of one or two test subjects, and even the ~8-point audio-vs-transcript margin is small in subject-level terms. Table 7 even reports Std 0.00 for some fusion cells, which indicates that the variance estimate is over a single split rather than a measure of split robustness. The claim in Section 4.2 that fusion 'consistently leads to higher Macro-F1 scores and, critically, more stable and reliable predictions by reducing variance'
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.3, Table 9] The headline claim that psychiatric reasoning 'consistently improves LLM diagnostic performance by up to 10% in Macro-F1' is directly contradicted by Table 9. In zero-shot, Qwen2.5-Omni drops from 60.26 (Direct) to 46.36 (Psychiatric), a 13.90-point decline. In few-shot, DeepSeek-r1 drops from 60.38 (Direct) to 48.42 (Psychiatric), and Qwen2.5-Omni drops from 38.64 to 37.94. Section 4.3 itself acknowledges 'degradation' and 'conflict' for several models, so the unqualified 'consistently' is not accurate. Please replace 'consistently' with a qualified claim, such as 'improves most text-based non-thinking models,' and either exclude the multimodal model from the claimed pattern or provide an explicit analysis of why psychiatric reasoning hurts Qwen2.5-Omni.
  3. [Sections 2.1 and 2.2.1, Table 1] C-MIND's value as a 'clinically validated' benchmark depends on the correctness of the two-psychiatrist DSM-5 diagnosis, but the paper reports no inter-rater reliability statistic (e.g., Cohen's kappa), no procedure for resolving disagreement between the chief and associate chief psychiatrist, and no external validation against a structured diagnostic instrument. The cohort is a single-hospital volunteer sample; label noise would propagate into every task/modality ranking and every LLM performance number. Please report inter-rater reliability or inter-rater agreement, describe the consensus procedure, and discuss potential label noise. If such data are unavailable, the dataset and all conclusions should be framed as preliminary, and the reported ranking should be interpreted with this limitation explicitly stated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4] The axis labels and legend in Figure 4 render as corrupted glyph strings (e.g., '/uni00000024/...'). The figure needs to be regenerated with proper labels.
  2. [Tables 7 and 8] The column headers in Tables 7 and 8 are ambiguous: combinations such as 'A V T N A V A N T...' are unlabeled, making it impossible to map each column to a specific modality or task fusion. Add explicit labels or a legend.
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'Psychiatric Reasoning consistently improves zero-shot performance' is immediately followed by exceptions, including Qwen2.5-Omni's large decline. Please rephrase to reflect the actual pattern and avoid 'consistently.'
  4. [Section 4.4] The phrase 'reasoning with psychiatric knowledge assesses recognize protective factors' appears to contain a typo ('assesses recognize'). Correct the wording.
  5. [Table 4 and Section C.2] The paper says 'All models are called using their official APIs with fixed parameters to ensure deterministic outputs.' Temperature 0 does not guarantee determinism in all APIs; report the number of repeated runs per condition or provide a determinism check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; all central claims are held-out empirical results with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central results are empirical evaluations on a held-out 6:2:2 split of C-MIND. Behavioral-signature models are trained on the training portion and scored on the test portion; the task/modality rankings, fusion comparisons, and LLM performance numbers come from test-set Macro-F1. The psychiatric-reasoning prompt is a fixed, hand-authored clinical instruction inserted at inference time; there is no evidence that its content was fitted to test labels or derived from a fitted parameter, so the reported gains are not statistically forced by construction. The only self-citations (Chen et al., 2024; Bi et al., 2025) appear in Related Work as ordinary literature context and are not load-bearing for the dataset, the behavioral-signature rankings, or the LLM improvements. No equation defines a claimed output in terms of its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus no circular step is identifiable from the manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the paper is an empirical ML benchmark: the claims rest on clinical label reliability, feature extractor validity, and a small single-site cohort, plus standard tuned hyperparameters. No new theoretical entities or derived constants are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • RF hyperparameters (n_estimators, max_depth) = searched via RandomizedSearchCV, n_estimators 25-500, max_depth 2-50
    Selected on validation folds to maximize accuracy; affects all Random Forest results in Table 3.
  • k-NN neighbor count k = selected from 1-10 by 5-fold CV
    Determines the k-NN Macro-F1 values in Table 3.
  • SVM regularization C = 1.0 (linear kernel)
    Fixed choice; affects all SVM results.
  • LSTM/CNN/MLP architecture hyperparameters = e.g., LSTM hidden 512/128, dropout 0.2-0.3, learning rates 1e-4 to 1e-3
    Hand-chosen and early-stopped on validation loss; influence the neural results in Table 3.
  • Train/validation/test split ratio = 6:2:2 (about 101/34/34 subjects)
    A single random split is the evaluation basis for all reported comparisons; results are averaged over five model seeds only.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DSM-5 diagnosis by the two psychiatrists is an accurate gold standard
    Section 2.2.1 treats the face-to-face DSM-5 diagnosis as ground truth; no inter-rater reliability or external validation is reported.
  • domain assumption Transcripts from commercial ASR plus manual proofreading are faithful to the speech
    Section 2.2.2; transcription errors could affect transcript-based and LLM results.
  • domain assumption eGeMAPS/OpenFace/DeBERTa/Qwen features capture task-relevant depression signals in Chinese speech and video
    Section 3.1 and Appendix B; no modality-specific validation on this population is provided.
  • domain assumption fNIRS signals from 45 channels are meaningful after the described statistical feature computation
    Section 2.2.2 and B.1; device model, montage, and preprocessing are not specified.
  • domain assumption The 169-subject single-hospital volunteer cohort is representative enough for generalizable rankings
    Section 2.1; recruitment via internal announcements, no matching or external replication.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Landscape of Clinical Depression Assessment: From Behavioral Signatures to Psychiatric Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A27GHL6Q

@misc{pith2026250804531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Landscape of Clinical Depression Assessment: From Behavioral Signatures to Psychiatric Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A27GHL6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04531}
}
read the original abstract

Depression is a widespread mental disorder that affects millions worldwide. While automated depression assessment shows promise, most studies rely on limited or non-clinically validated data, and often prioritize complex model design over real-world effectiveness. In this paper, we aim to unveil the landscape of clinical depression assessment. We introduce C-MIND, a clinical neuropsychiatric multimodal diagnosis dataset collected over two years from real hospital visits. Each participant completes three structured psychiatric tasks and receives a final diagnosis from expert clinicians, with informative audio, video, transcript, and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) signals recorded. Using C-MIND, we first analyze behavioral signatures relevant to diagnosis. We train a range of classical models to quantify how different tasks and modalities contribute to diagnostic performance, and dissect the effectiveness of their combinations. We then explore whether LLMs can perform psychiatric reasoning like clinicians and identify their clear limitations in realistic clinical settings. In response, we propose to guide the reasoning process with clinical expertise and consistently improves LLM diagnostic performance by up to 10% in Macro-F1 score. We aim to build an infrastructure for clinical depression assessment from both data and algorithmic perspectives, enabling C-MIND to facilitate grounded and reliable research for mental healthcare.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A few questions will show up on the screen. Please say your answers. If you are ready, press the spacebar to start the practice

    Interview Task (INT) The task has a practice part and a formal part. Practice Session • Instructions: “A few questions will show up on the screen. Please say your answers. If you are ready, press the spacebar to start the practice.” • Procedure: First, a dot appears for 500ms. Then, a question appears with a note: “You have 5 seconds to prepare.” This scr...

    work page

  2. [2]

    What thoughts or feel- ings does this picture give you? You have 5 seconds to prepare

    Picture Description Task (PDT) This task also has a practice and a formal part. The images used are shown in Figure 8. Practice Session • Instructions: “Next, you will see a picture. Please talk about the feelings or thoughts the picture gives you. Note: Please only talk about the picture itself. If you are ready, press the spacebar to start the practice....

    work page

  3. [3]

    A word for a category will appear on the screen. Please say words from that cat- egory. You have 30 seconds. If you are ready, press the spacebar to start

    V erbal Fluency Task (VFT) This task asks people to say words from a specific group. Practice Session • Instructions: “A word for a category will appear on the screen. Please say words from that cat- egory. You have 30 seconds. If you are ready, press the spacebar to start.” • Procedure: After a 500ms dot, a screen shows a category word with examples. The...

    work page

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437

    Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437. Yang Liu, Xiaoyong Lu, Daimin Shi, Jingyi Yuan, Tao Pan, and Haizhen An. 2021. Improved depression recognition using attention and multitask learning of gender recognition. In 2021 International Confer- ence on Asian Language Processing (IALP), pages 57–61. IEEE. Xinyu Ma, Hongyu Yang, Qiang C...

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388

    Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388. Jihyeon Yoon, Chae-yeon Kang, Soyeon Kim, and Jae- woo Han. 2022. D-vlog: Multimodal vlog dataset for depression detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 36, pages 12226–12234. Ayah Zirikly, Philip Resnik, Ozlem Uzuner, and Kristy Hollingshead. 2019. Clpsy...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    This tool assesses personality traits

    16PF 16 Personality Factor Question- naire (Cattell et al., 1970). This tool assesses personality traits. This helps us understand if certain personality types are related to a person’s mental state. (a) Image: Flying bird (b) Image: Cat (c) Image: Car accident (d) Image: Spaceship Figure 8: Visual stimuli used in the Picture Description Task (PDT). Figur...

    work page 1970

  7. [7]

    This scale screens for a wide range of psy- chological symptoms

    SCL-90 Symptom Checklist-90 (Derogatis, 1977). This scale screens for a wide range of psy- chological symptoms. This helps us check for other conditions that might exist alongside depression

    work page 1977

  8. [8]

    Classical Feature Set

    HCL-32 Hypomania Checklist-32 (Angst et al., 2005). This checklist helps identify signs of hypomania. We use it to make sure we do not mis- diagnose someone with bipolar disorder as having depression. This improves our diagnostic accuracy. B Feature Extraction Details We extract two different sets of features for experi- ments. The first is a “Classical F...

    work page 2005

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    This is a clinician-rated tool to get an objective evaluation of depression severity

    HAMD Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Hamilton, 1960). This is a clinician-rated tool to get an objective evaluation of depression severity. It is based on observed behaviors and what the participant reports

    1960

  2. [10]

    This is also a clinician- rated tool that gives an objective evaluation of how severe a person’s anxiety is

    HAMA Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (Hamilton, 1959). This is also a clinician- rated tool that gives an objective evaluation of how severe a person’s anxiety is

    1959

  3. [11]

    This is a self-report tool

    SDS Self-Rating Depression Scale (Zung, 1965). This is a self-report tool. It helps capture a person’s own feelings of depression, which might not be clear from an interview alone

    1965

  4. [12]

    Like the SDS, this is a self-report tool for a person’s own feelings of anxiety

    SAS Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (Zung, 1971). Like the SDS, this is a self-report tool for a person’s own feelings of anxiety

    1971

  5. [13]

    This scale measures a person’s sleep quality over the last month

    PSQI Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (Buysse et al., 1989). This scale measures a person’s sleep quality over the last month. We include it because sleep problems are common in mood disorders

    1989

  6. [17]

    This feature set in- cludes statistics for 8 frequency-related features, 3 energy-related features, and 14 spectral features

    Audio We use the eGeMAPS feature set from OpenSMILE 3.0 (Eyben et al., 2010) to extract features from the audio clips. This feature set in- cludes statistics for 8 frequency-related features, 3 energy-related features, and 14 spectral features. This gives a total of 88 feature...

    2010

  7. [18]

    OpenFace is an open-source tool for facial analysis

    Video We use OpenFace 2.2.0 (Baltrusaitis et al., 2018) to extract facial features from video files. OpenFace is an open-source tool for facial analysis. We extract features like frame number, confidence, eye gaze vectors, eye landmarks, head pose, and facial action units (AUs...

    2018

  8. [19]

    Transcript We use a Chinese pretrained De- BERTa model (He et al., 2020) to extract 768- dimension feature vector for the text

    2020

  9. [20]

    For this data, we calculate the same 7 statistics as the video features: minimum, maximum, mean, vari- ance, range, kurtosis, and skewness

    fNIRS We collect the oxygenated and deoxy- genated hemoglobin concentration from 45 chan- nels of the fNIRS device (Cui et al., 2011). For this data, we calculate the same 7 statistics as the video features: minimum, maximum, mean, vari- ance, range, kurtosis, and skewness. Th...

    2011

  10. [21]

    We take the audio for each of the 10 tasks and cut it into clips shorter than 30 seconds

    Audio We use Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct (Chu et al., 2023). We take the audio for each of the 10 tasks and cut it into clips shorter than 30 seconds. We feed these clips into the model and take the features from the last hidden layer. We join the features for the same task and th...

    2023

  11. [22]

    First, we split each participant’s full video into 10 smaller videos based on the 10 task times- tamps

    Video We use Qwen2.5-VL-72B (Bai et al., 2025). First, we split each participant’s full video into 10 smaller videos based on the 10 task times- tamps. We feed each video into the model. Each frame is resized to 224x224 pixels. We use the official get_video_features function t...

    2025

  12. [23]

    We take the speech-to-text transcripts for each of the 10 tasks and feed them into the model

    Transcript We use Qwen3-235B-A22B (Yang et al., 2025). We take the speech-to-text transcripts for each of the 10 tasks and feed them into the model. We extract features from the last hidden layer and then apply global max pooling over the sequence dimension. This gives a final...

    2025

  13. [24]

    C Methodology Implementation Details C.1 Behavioral Signature Modeling We train six different learning backbones to model the behavioral signatures

    fNIRS Due to the lack of a pretrained model for fNIRS signals, we use the same statistical fea- tures for fNIRS as in the Classical Feature Set. C Methodology Implementation Details C.1 Behavioral Signature Modeling We train six different learning backbones to model the behavi...

  14. [25]

    LSTM For the LSTM model, we first ex- tract features for specific time steps based on the task type and normalize the data for each modal- ity. Each modality passes through a Batch Nor- malization (BN) layer, followed by a two-layer fully-connected network for dimension reduct...

  15. [26]

    The model first receives this input tensor and passes it through a convolu- tional layer with 32 filters of size (2, 1), a stride of (2, 1), and ‘same’ padding

    CNN To fit the CNN’s input structure, the 512- dimensional fused features are reshaped into a 3D tensor of shape (512, 1, 1). The model first receives this input tensor and passes it through a convolu- tional layer with 32 filters of size (2, 1), a stride of (2, 1), and ‘same’...

  16. [27]

    The first is a fully-connected layer with 64 neurons, followed by a ReLU acti- vation and Dropout (rate 0.3)

    MLP The Multi-Layer Perceptron model has two hidden layers. The first is a fully-connected layer with 64 neurons, followed by a ReLU acti- vation and Dropout (rate 0.3). The second is a 32- neuron fully-connected layer with the same struc- ture. To enhance generalization, we a...

  17. [28]

    We test different numbers of neighbors from 1 to 10 and use five-fold cross-validation to evalu- ate the accuracy for each

    k-NN For the K-Nearest Neighbors model, we perform an automatic selection of the hyperparame- ter k. We test different numbers of neighbors from 1 to 10 and use five-fold cross-validation to evalu- ate the accuracy for each. The k value that yields the highest average accuracy...

  18. [29]

    We search over two key parameters: the number of trees (n_estimators, from 25 to 500) and the maximum depth of the trees (max_depth, from 2 to 50)

    RF For the Random Forest model, we use Ran- domizedSearchCV with five-fold cross-validation to search for the best hyperparameters. We search over two key parameters: the number of trees (n_estimators, from 25 to 500) and the maximum depth of the trees (max_depth, from 2 to 50...

  19. [30]

    The regularization strength C is set to 1, and we set class_weight = balanced to address the class imbalance issue in the dataset

    SVM For the Support Vector Machine model, we use a linear kernel. The regularization strength C is set to 1, and we set class_weight = balanced to address the class imbalance issue in the dataset. C.2 Psychiatric Reasoning with LLMs We evaluate several leading LLMs to assess t...

  20. [31]

    It can process any combination of text, image, and video as input and generate text, audio, and image outputs (OpenAI, 2024)

    GPT-4o : A model from OpenAI, released on May 13, 2024. It can process any combination of text, image, and video as input and generate text, audio, and image outputs (OpenAI, 2024)

    2024

  21. [32]

    It is described as OpenAI’s most powerful reasoning model, advancing capabilities in coding, math, and visual perception (OpenAI, 2025)

    GPT-o3 : A model from OpenAI, released on April 16, 2025. It is described as OpenAI’s most powerful reasoning model, advancing capabilities in coding, math, and visual perception (OpenAI, 2025)

    2025

  22. [33]

    DeepSeek-R1 : A reasoning model from the AI company DeepSeek, released on January 20,

  23. [34]

    Its model weights are open-sourced (Guo et al., 2025)

    2025

  24. [35]

    DeepSeek-V3 : An LLM from DeepSeek AI, released and open-sourced on December 26, 2024 (Liu et al., 2024)

    2024

  25. [36]

    thinking mode

    Qwen3-235B-A22B : A model from Alibaba, released on April 29, 2025. A key innovation is in- tegrating a “thinking mode” for complex reasoning with a “non-thinking mode” for fast responses into one framework. We test both modes, referred to as Qwen3 (T) and Qwen3 (NT) (Yang et ...

    2025

  26. [37]

    an anger-inducing event,

    Qwen2.5-Omni : An end-to-end omni-modal model from the Qwen team, released on March 27, 2025. It supports simultaneous input of text, image, audio, and video with real-time streaming output (Xu et al., 2025). All models are called using their official APIs with fixed parameter...

    2025

  27. [2010]

    In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1459–1462

    opensmile: the munich versatile and fast open- source audio feature extractor. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1459–1462. Weiquan Fan, Zhiwei He, Xiaofen Xing, Bolun Cai, and Weirui Lu. 2019. Multi-modality depression detection via ...

    2019 arXiv

  28. [2024]

    JMIR mental health, 11(1):e57400

    Large language models for mental health ap- plications: systematic review. JMIR mental health, 11(1):e57400. M. Hamilton. 1959. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. British Journal of Medical Psychology , 32(1):50–55. M. Hamilton. 1960. A rating scale for depression. Jo...

    1959 arXiv

  29. [2025]

    Current Treatment Options in Psy- chiatry, 12(1):1–18

    Large language models in mental health care: a scoping review. Current Treatment Options in Psy- chiatry, 12(1):1–18. Xiaowen Jia, Jingxia Chen, Kexin Liu, Qian Wang, and Jialing He. 2025. Multimodal depression detection based on an attention graph convolution and trans- forme...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.