Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Unveiling and Mitigating Bias in Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models

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 2406.12033 v2 pith:SGVD6ZDF submitted 2024-06-17 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords healthmentalanalysisbiasesllmsmodelsacrossbias
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated strong capabilities across various applications, including mental health analysis. However, existing studies have focused on predictive performance, leaving the critical issue of fairness underexplored, posing significant risks to vulnerable populations. Despite acknowledging potential biases, previous works have lacked thorough investigations into these biases and their impacts. To address this gap, we systematically evaluate biases across seven social factors (e.g., gender, age, religion) using ten LLMs with different prompting methods on eight diverse mental health datasets. Our results show that GPT-4 achieves the best overall balance in performance and fairness among LLMs, although it still lags behind domain-specific models like MentalRoBERTa in some cases. Additionally, our tailored fairness-aware prompts can effectively mitigate bias in mental health predictions, highlighting the great potential for fair analysis in this field.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Mental Health Equity in LLMs: Leveraging Multi-Hop Question Answering to Detect Amplified and Silenced Perspectives

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multi-hop QA probe of four LLMs claims intersectional mental-health bias and 66-94% debiasing, but the bias metric is undefined and no conventional baseline is tested.

Pith tools