24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing prognosis in depression: comparing perspectives of AI models, mental health professionals and the general public

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly permeated various sectors, including healthcare, highlighting its potential to facilitate mental health assessments. This study explores the underexplored domain of AI’s role in evaluating prognosis and long-term outcomes in depressive disorders, offering insights into how AI large language models (LLMs) compare with human perspectives.

          Methods

          Using case vignettes, we conducted a comparative analysis involving different LLMs (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Claude and Bard), mental health professionals (general practitioners, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and mental health nurses), and the general public that reported previously. We evaluate the LLMs ability to generate prognosis, anticipated outcomes with and without professional intervention, and envisioned long-term positive and negative consequences for individuals with depression.

          Results

          In most of the examined cases, the four LLMs consistently identified depression as the primary diagnosis and recommended a combined treatment of psychotherapy and antidepressant medication. ChatGPT-3.5 exhibited a significantly pessimistic prognosis distinct from other LLMs, professionals and the public. ChatGPT-4, Claude and Bard aligned closely with mental health professionals and the general public perspectives, all of whom anticipated no improvement or worsening without professional help. Regarding long-term outcomes, ChatGPT 3.5, Claude and Bard consistently projected significantly fewer negative long-term consequences of treatment than ChatGPT-4.

          Conclusions

          This study underscores the potential of AI to complement the expertise of mental health professionals and promote a collaborative paradigm in mental healthcare. The observation that three of the four LLMs closely mirrored the anticipations of mental health experts in scenarios involving treatment underscores the technology’s prospective value in offering professional clinical forecasts. The pessimistic outlook presented by ChatGPT 3.5 is concerning, as it could potentially diminish patients’ drive to initiate or continue depression therapy. In summary, although LLMs show potential in enhancing healthcare services, their utilisation requires thorough verification and a seamless integration with human judgement and skills.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

          (2022)
          Summary Background The mental disorders included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 were depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, eating disorders, idiopathic developmental intellectual disability, and a residual category of other mental disorders. We aimed to measure the global, regional, and national prevalence, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYS), years lived with disability (YLDs), and years of life lost (YLLs) for mental disorders from 1990 to 2019. Methods In this study, we assessed prevalence and burden estimates from GBD 2019 for 12 mental disorders, males and females, 23 age groups, 204 countries and territories, between 1990 and 2019. DALYs were estimated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs to premature mortality. We systematically reviewed PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, and the Global Health Data Exchange to obtain data on prevalence, incidence, remission, duration, severity, and excess mortality for each mental disorder. These data informed a Bayesian meta-regression analysis to estimate prevalence by disorder, age, sex, year, and location. Prevalence was multiplied by corresponding disability weights to estimate YLDs. Cause-specific deaths were compiled from mortality surveillance databases. The Cause of Death Ensemble modelling strategy was used to estimate death rate by age, sex, year, and location. The death rates were multiplied by the years of life expected to be remaining at death based on a normative life expectancy to estimate YLLs. Deaths and YLLs could be calculated only for anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, since these were the only mental disorders identified as underlying causes of death in GBD 2019. Findings Between 1990 and 2019, the global number of DALYs due to mental disorders increased from 80·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 59·5–105·9) to 125·3 million (93·0–163·2), and the proportion of global DALYs attributed to mental disorders increased from 3·1% (95% UI 2·4–3·9) to 4·9% (3·9–6·1). Age-standardised DALY rates remained largely consistent between 1990 (1581·2 DALYs [1170·9–2061·4] per 100 000 people) and 2019 (1566·2 DALYs [1160·1–2042·8] per 100 000 people). YLDs contributed to most of the mental disorder burden, with 125·3 million YLDs (95% UI 93·0–163·2; 14·6% [12·2–16·8] of global YLDs) in 2019 attributable to mental disorders. Eating disorders accounted for 17 361·5 YLLs (95% UI 15 518·5–21 459·8). Globally, the age-standardised DALY rate for mental disorders was 1426·5 (95% UI 1056·4–1869·5) per 100 000 population among males and 1703·3 (1261·5–2237·8) per 100 000 population among females. Age-standardised DALY rates were highest in Australasia, Tropical Latin America, and high-income North America. Interpretation GBD 2019 showed that mental disorders remained among the top ten leading causes of burden worldwide, with no evidence of global reduction in the burden since 1990. The estimated YLLs for mental disorders were extremely low and do not reflect premature mortality in individuals with mental disorders. Research to establish causal pathways between mental disorders and other fatal health outcomes is recommended so that this may be addressed within the GBD study. To reduce the burden of mental disorders, coordinated delivery of effective prevention and treatment programmes by governments and the global health community is imperative. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Department of Health, Australia.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

            Summary Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder. Methods We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291. Findings We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89–2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16–1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72–0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80–0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01–1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19–1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51–0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43–0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30–2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. Interpretation All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants. Funding National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns

              ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based conversational large language model (LLM). The potential applications of LLMs in health care education, research, and practice could be promising if the associated valid concerns are proactively examined and addressed. The current systematic review aimed to investigate the utility of ChatGPT in health care education, research, and practice and to highlight its potential limitations. Using the PRIMSA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted to retrieve English records in PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar (published research or preprints) that examined ChatGPT in the context of health care education, research, or practice. A total of 60 records were eligible for inclusion. Benefits of ChatGPT were cited in 51/60 (85.0%) records and included: (1) improved scientific writing and enhancing research equity and versatility; (2) utility in health care research (efficient analysis of datasets, code generation, literature reviews, saving time to focus on experimental design, and drug discovery and development); (3) benefits in health care practice (streamlining the workflow, cost saving, documentation, personalized medicine, and improved health literacy); and (4) benefits in health care education including improved personalized learning and the focus on critical thinking and problem-based learning. Concerns regarding ChatGPT use were stated in 58/60 (96.7%) records including ethical, copyright, transparency, and legal issues, the risk of bias, plagiarism, lack of originality, inaccurate content with risk of hallucination, limited knowledge, incorrect citations, cybersecurity issues, and risk of infodemics. The promising applications of ChatGPT can induce paradigm shifts in health care education, research, and practice. However, the embrace of this AI chatbot should be conducted with extreme caution considering its potential limitations. As it currently stands, ChatGPT does not qualify to be listed as an author in scientific articles unless the ICMJE/COPE guidelines are revised or amended. An initiative involving all stakeholders in health care education, research, and practice is urgently needed. This will help to set a code of ethics to guide the responsible use of ChatGPT among other LLMs in health care and academia.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Fam Med Community Health
                Fam Med Community Health
                fmch
                fmch
                Family Medicine and Community Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2305-6983
                2009-8774
                2024
                10 January 2024
                : 12
                : Suppl 1
                : e002583
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Psychology and Educational Counseling, The Center for Psychobiological Research , Max Stern Yezreel Valley College , Yezreel Valley, Israel
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Brain Sciences , Ringgold_4615Imperial College London , London, UK
                [3 ]departmentFaculty of Graduate Studies , Ringgold_42737Oranim Academic College , Tivon, Israel
                [4 ]departmentThe Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work , Ringgold_26731Bar-Ilan University , Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Israel
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Zohar Elyoseph; zohare@ 123456yvc.ac.il
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5717-4074
                Article
                fmch-2023-002583
                10.1136/fmch-2023-002583
                10806564
                38199604
                94ba10c1-5475-469a-a03f-41d8d9fa4c03
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                mental health,depression,general practice,psychiatry,nurses
                mental health, depression, general practice, psychiatry, nurses

                Comments

                Comment on this article