Back

Evaluating Large Language Models for Assessment of Psychosis Risk

Zhu, T.; Tashevski, A.; Taquet, M.; Azis, M.; Jani, T.; Broome, M. R.; Kabir, T.; Minichino, A.; Murray, G. K.; Nour, M. M.; Singh, I.; Fusar-Poli, P.; Nevado-Holgado, A.; McGuire, P.; Oliver, D.

2026-04-04 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.04.02.26349960 medRxiv
Show abstract

Psychosis prevention relies on early detection of individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) remains limited, constraining preventive care. The effectiveness of the CHR-P state is constrained, in part due to clinical assessments requiring specialist interpretation of narrative interviews, limiting scalability. Here, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs; deep learning models trained on large text corpora to process and generate language) can extract clinically meaningful information from such interviews to support psychosis risk assessment. We assessed 11 open-weight LLMs on 678 PSYCHS interview transcripts from 373 participants (77.7% CHR-P). Models inferred CHR-P status and estimated severity and frequency across 15 symptom domains, benchmarked against researcher-rated scores. Larger models achieved the strongest classification performance (Llama-3.3-70B: accuracy = 0.80, sensitivity = 0.93, specificity = 0.58). LLM-generated symptom scores showed good correlations with researcher-rated scores (ICCsev = 0.74, ICCfreq = 0.75). Performance disparities were minimal across most demographic groups but varied across sites. Generated summaries were largely faithful to source transcripts, with low rates of clinically relevant confabulation (3%). Errors primarily reflected over-pathologisation of non-clinical experiences. While accuracy scaled with model size, smaller models achieved competitive performance with substantially lower computational cost. These findings demonstrate that open-weight LLMs can assess psychosis risk from clinical interview transcripts, supporting scalable, human-in-the-loop approaches to early detection.

Published in npj Digital Medicine (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.