Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Mental Health

Date Submitted: Sep 24, 2023
Date Accepted: Feb 11, 2024

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Comparing the Perspectives of Generative AI, Mental Health Experts, and the General Public on Schizophrenia Recovery: Case Vignette Study

Elyoseph Z, Levkovich I

Comparing the Perspectives of Generative AI, Mental Health Experts, and the General Public on Schizophrenia Recovery: Case Vignette Study

JMIR Ment Health 2024;11:e53043

DOI: 10.2196/53043

PMID: 38533615

PMCID: 11004608

Perspectives on Schizophrenia Recovery: Artificial Intelligence vs. Experts and the Public

  • Zohar Elyoseph; 
  • Inbar Levkovich

ABSTRACT

Background:

"

Background:

The current paradigm in mental healthcare focuses on clinical recovery and symptom remission. This model’s efficacy is influenced by therapist trust in patient recovery potential and therapeutic relationship depth. Schizophrenia is a chronic illness with severe symptoms where the possibility of recovery is a matter of debate. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes integrated into the healthcare field, it is important to examine its ability to assess recovery potential in major psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia.

Objective:

Objectives: To evaluate the ability of Large Languets Models (LLMs) in comparison to mental health professionals to assess the prognosis of schizophrenia with and without treatments and the long term positive and negative outcomes.

Methods:

Methods:

Vignettes were input to LLMs interfaces and assessed ten times by four AI platforms: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Google Bard, and Claude. A total of 80 evaluations were collected and benchmarked against existing norms to analyze what mental health professionals (general practitioners, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and mental health nurses) and the general public think about schizophrenia prognosis with and without treatment and the positive and negative long-term outcomes of schizophrenia interventions.

Results:

Results:

Prognosis with professional help: ChatGPT-3.5 was notably pessimistic, whereas ChatGPT-4, Claude and BARD aligned with professional views but differed from the general public. All LLMs believed untreated schizophrenia would remain static or worsen without professional help. Long-term outcomes: ChatGPT-4 and Claude predicted more negative outcomes than BARD and ChatGPT-3.5. For positive outcomes, ChatGPT-3.5 and Claude were more negative than BARD and ChatGPT-4.

Conclusions:

Conclusions:

The findings that three out of the four LLMs aligned closely with the predictions of mental health professionals when considering the 'with treatment' condition is a demonstration of the potential of this technology in providing professional clinical prognosis. The pessimistic assessment of ChatGPT 3.5 is a disturbing finding since it may reduce the motivation of patients to start or persist with treatment for schizophrenia. Overall, while LLMs hold promise in augmenting healthcare, their application necessitates rigorous validation and a harmonious blend with human expertise.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Elyoseph Z, Levkovich I

Comparing the Perspectives of Generative AI, Mental Health Experts, and the General Public on Schizophrenia Recovery: Case Vignette Study

JMIR Ment Health 2024;11:e53043

DOI: 10.2196/53043

PMID: 38533615

PMCID: 11004608

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.