Whitney R. Ringwald,Aman Taxali,Mike Angstadt,Colin E. Vize,Chandra Sripada,Aidan G. C. Wright
{"title":"Large language models for depression assessment from brief daily diaries","authors":"Whitney R. Ringwald,Aman Taxali,Mike Angstadt,Colin E. Vize,Chandra Sripada,Aidan G. C. Wright","doi":"10.1038/s41746-026-03388-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Closely tracking changes in depression is important for clinical research and practice. However, intensive longitudinal depression assessment relies on self-report surveys that have major limitations. Scoring depression from natural language with large language models (LLMs) could resolve these shortcomings. This study tested the validity of depression rated by LLMs from daily video diaries. We studied 108 participants selected for mental health treatment status (45% in treatment). Participants completed a clinical interview and 14-21 days of depression surveys and video diaries. Daily depression scores were estimated by LLMs from diary transcripts. LLM ratings converged with self-report depression within-person ( r = .45;95% CrI[.40, .49]) and when averaged across days for an overall depression score ( r = .61;95% CrI[.43,.75]). Averaged LLM ratings correlated with depression symptom severity ascertained by clinical interview ( r = .53;95% CrI[.35, .68]). LLM-rated depression and self-report had similar profiles of associations with daily functioning variables (profile r = .98 within-person; r = .94 between-person). Multivariable regression results showed LLM ratings predicted daily functioning variables (partial $$\\beta s$$ β s =|.12 | - | .28 | ) and interview-rated depression (partial $$\\beta$$ β =.33;95% CrI[.07, .58]) over and above self-reports, suggesting LLMs capture clinically-relevant information that self-reports miss. Findings establish a strong foundation for a depression assessment approach that addresses shortcomings of self-reports while satisfying the unique demands of intensive longitudinal monitoring.","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":18.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-03388-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Closely tracking changes in depression is important for clinical research and practice. However, intensive longitudinal depression assessment relies on self-report surveys that have major limitations. Scoring depression from natural language with large language models (LLMs) could resolve these shortcomings. This study tested the validity of depression rated by LLMs from daily video diaries. We studied 108 participants selected for mental health treatment status (45% in treatment). Participants completed a clinical interview and 14-21 days of depression surveys and video diaries. Daily depression scores were estimated by LLMs from diary transcripts. LLM ratings converged with self-report depression within-person ( r = .45;95% CrI[.40, .49]) and when averaged across days for an overall depression score ( r = .61;95% CrI[.43,.75]). Averaged LLM ratings correlated with depression symptom severity ascertained by clinical interview ( r = .53;95% CrI[.35, .68]). LLM-rated depression and self-report had similar profiles of associations with daily functioning variables (profile r = .98 within-person; r = .94 between-person). Multivariable regression results showed LLM ratings predicted daily functioning variables (partial $$\beta s$$ β s =|.12 | - | .28 | ) and interview-rated depression (partial $$\beta$$ β =.33;95% CrI[.07, .58]) over and above self-reports, suggesting LLMs capture clinically-relevant information that self-reports miss. Findings establish a strong foundation for a depression assessment approach that addresses shortcomings of self-reports while satisfying the unique demands of intensive longitudinal monitoring.
密切跟踪抑郁症的变化对临床研究和实践具有重要意义。然而,密集的纵向抑郁评估依赖于自我报告调查,这有很大的局限性。使用大型语言模型(llm)从自然语言中对抑郁症进行评分可以解决这些缺点。本研究检验了法学硕士从日常视频日记中评定抑郁的效度。我们研究了108名心理健康治疗状况的参与者(45% in treatment). Participants completed a clinical interview and 14-21 days of depression surveys and video diaries. Daily depression scores were estimated by LLMs from diary transcripts. LLM ratings converged with self-report depression within-person ( r = .45;95% CrI[.40, .49]) and when averaged across days for an overall depression score ( r = .61;95% CrI[.43,.75]). Averaged LLM ratings correlated with depression symptom severity ascertained by clinical interview ( r = .53;95% CrI[.35, .68]). LLM-rated depression and self-report had similar profiles of associations with daily functioning variables (profile r = .98 within-person; r = .94 between-person). Multivariable regression results showed LLM ratings predicted daily functioning variables (partial $$\beta s$$ β s =|.12 | - | .28 | ) and interview-rated depression (partial $$\beta$$ β =.33;95% CrI[.07, .58]) over and above self-reports, suggesting LLMs capture clinically-relevant information that self-reports miss. Findings establish a strong foundation for a depression assessment approach that addresses shortcomings of self-reports while satisfying the unique demands of intensive longitudinal monitoring.
期刊介绍:
npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics.
The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.