Human vs. machine - Evaluating GPT-4, GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini in rating depression interviews in a convenience sample of the German population

Despite high prevalence, depression often remains undetected. Artificial Intelligence (AI) screening methods may help address this gap. AI models’ proficiency in rating depression interviews in comparison with human raters has been demonstrated for clinical populations. The capacity of three Large Language Models (LLMs) for rating depression interviews was evaluated. The test dataset contained interviews from the general population to evaluate model capacity for screening. LLM ratings were compared with assessments provided by trained psychology students. GPT-4, GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini were prompted to rate interview transcripts from N = 55 participants from a convenience sample of the German population on a depression scale. Models were used without task-specific fine-tuning. LLM performance was evaluated via intraclass correlations with trained psychology students’ assessments leveraging a scale explicitly designed to yield reliable ratings when applied by first-time raters. GPT-4 and GPT-4o achieved moderate to good interrater reliability with student raters (ICC 0.76 and 0.75) while ICC for GPT-4o-mini was moderate (0.55), with 98.88% CIs [0.38 to 0.70] indicating greater uncertainty. F1 accuracy scores ranged from 0.56 for GPT-4o-mini to 0.75 for GPT-4. The results suggest GPT-4’s and GPT-4o’s potential for scoring depression interviews from the general population, with GPT-4o meeting sensitivity and specificity values for case finding instruments. Our results require further validation with clinician raters in a larger and more diverse sample. Future research should explore fine-tuning and potential model bias. • We compared three LLMs with trained student raters scoring depression interviews • GPT-4 and GPT-4o estimations showed moderate to good reliability with trained student raters • GPT-4o-mini’s scores showed less than moderate reliability • GPT-4o met required sensitivity and specificity values for case finding instruments • The models were neither pretrained, nor fine-tuned for this task.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Published
2026-02-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.100968
Primary Topic
Digital Mental Health Interventions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Human vs. machine - Evaluating GPT-4, GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini in rating depression interviews in a convenience sample of the German population

Youssef Shiban, Nicolina Peperkorn, Julia Ohse, J. H. Fox et al.
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Digital Mental Health Interventions
article

Human vs. machine - Evaluating GPT-4, GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini in rating depression interviews in a convenience sample of the German population

Youssef Shiban, Nicolina Peperkorn, Julia Ohse, J. H. Fox, Bakir Hadžić, Matthias Rätsch, Johanna Neukirch, Maxi Ploen
article en

Abstract

Despite high prevalence, depression often remains undetected. Artificial Intelligence (AI) screening methods may help address this gap. AI models’ proficiency in rating depression interviews in comparison with human raters has been demonstrated for clinical populations. The capacity of three Large Language Models (LLMs) for rating depression interviews was evaluated. The test dataset contained interviews from the general population to evaluate model capacity for screening. LLM ratings were compared with assessments provided by trained psychology students. GPT-4, GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini were prompted to rate interview transcripts from N = 55 participants from a convenience sample of the German population on a depression scale. Models were used without task-specific fine-tuning. LLM performance was evaluated via intraclass correlations with trained psychology students’ assessments leveraging a scale explicitly designed to yield reliable ratings when applied by first-time raters. GPT-4 and GPT-4o achieved moderate to good interrater reliability with student raters (ICC 0.76 and 0.75) while ICC for GPT-4o-mini was moderate (0.55), with 98.88% CIs [0.38 to 0.70] indicating greater uncertainty. F1 accuracy scores ranged from 0.56 for GPT-4o-mini to 0.75 for GPT-4. The results suggest GPT-4’s and GPT-4o’s potential for scoring depression interviews from the general population, with GPT-4o meeting sensitivity and specificity values for case finding instruments. Our results require further validation with clinician raters in a larger and more diverse sample. Future research should explore fine-tuning and potential model bias. • We compared three LLMs with trained student raters scoring depression interviews • GPT-4 and GPT-4o estimations showed moderate to good reliability with trained student raters • GPT-4o-mini’s scores showed less than moderate reliability • GPT-4o met required sensitivity and specificity values for case finding instruments • The models were neither pretrained, nor fine-tuned for this task.

Computers in Human Behavior ReportsVol. 21
PFH Private University of Applied Sciences (DE), Reutlingen University (DE)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Digital Mental Health Interventions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.