Daily Papers

Should a large language model (LLM) be used as a therapist? In this paper, we investigate the use of LLMs to *replace* mental health providers, a use case promoted in the tech startup and research space. We conduct a mapping review of therapy guides used by major medical institutions to identify crucial aspects of therapeutic relationships, such as the importance of a therapeutic alliance between therapist and client. We then assess the ability of LLMs to reproduce and adhere to these aspects of therapeutic relationships by conducting several experiments investigating the responses of current LLMs, such as `gpt-4o`. Contrary to best practices in the medical community, LLMs 1) express stigma toward those with mental health conditions and 2) respond inappropriately to certain common (and critical) conditions in naturalistic therapy settings -- e.g., LLMs encourage clients' delusional thinking, likely due to their sycophancy. This occurs even with larger and newer LLMs, indicating that current safety practices may not address these gaps. Furthermore, we note foundational and practical barriers to the adoption of LLMs as therapists, such as that a therapeutic alliance requires human characteristics (e.g., identity and stakes). For these reasons, we conclude that LLMs should not replace therapists, and we discuss alternative roles for LLMs in clinical therapy.

We survey clinical document corpora, with focus on German textual data. Due to rigid data privacy legislation in Germany these resources, with only few exceptions, are stored in safe clinical data spaces and locked against clinic-external researchers. This situation stands in stark contrast with established workflows in the field of natural language processing where easy accessibility and reuse of data collections are common practice. Hence, alternative corpus designs have been examined to escape from this data poverty. Besides machine translation of English clinical datasets and the generation of synthetic corpora with fictitious clinical contents, several other types of domain proxies have come up as substitutes for authentic clinical documents. Common instances of close proxies are medical journal publications, clinical therapy guidelines, drug labels, etc., more distant proxies include online encyclopedic medical articles or medical contents from social media channels. After PRISM-conformant screening of 359 hits from four bibliographic systems, 75 relevant documents were finally selected for this review and 59 distinct corpora were determined. We identified 24 real clinical corpora (from 40 publications) out of which only 5 are publicly distributable. 2 translations of real corpora and 3 synthetic ones complement the set of clinical corpora. 14 corpora were categorized as close domain proxies, 16 as distant ones. There is a clear divide between the large number of non-accessible authentic clinical German-language corpora and their publicly accessible substitutes: translated or synthetic, close or more distant proxies. So on first sight, the data bottleneck seems broken. Intuitively yet, differences in genre-specific writing style, wording and medical domain expertise in this typological space are also obvious. This raises the question how valid alternative corpus designs really are.