Artificial Intelligence · 07.08.2026, 09:14 UTC
Plausible Patients, Impossible Populations: Auditing Epidemiological Fidelity in Large Language Model Mental Health Simulations
| Schweregrad | info |
|---|---|
| Kategorie | Artificial Intelligence |
| Quelle | arXiv cs.AI ↗ |
| Veröffentlicht | 07.08.2026 UTC |
Sicherheitsmeldung mit Schweregrad noch nicht bewertet. Technische Details im Tab „Originaltext“; empfohlene Schritte in der Checkliste.
arXiv:2604.17359v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Language models asked to simulate psychiatric patients produce cases that survive inspection one at a time and populations that match no real one. We gave GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-3-Flash, DeepSeek-V3 and GLM-4.7 each of 120 demographic cohorts under two framings, one written as a clinician enters a patient and one as a person describes themselves, and scored all 28,800 responses against survey-weighted PHQ-8 anchors derived from NHANES microdata. Case by case the output holds up: 97.3% of elevated presentations satisfy the DSM-5 gateway rule, violating it at 2.68% against a chance null of 10.4%. As populations, four things fail at once. Every benchmarkable group returns inflated by 2.8 to 5.5 PHQ-8 points, and 18.2% of simulated patients screen at the treatment threshold against 7.5% of adults. Population Black-White and Hispanic-White disparities do not survive the simulation, with two models attenuating each gap and two flattening or inverting it. Symptom covariance reorganizes by cohort, putting the error beyond any recalibration, and demographic offsets do not stack, so a correction fitted on marginals misses the cells by about 0.4 points either way. And the answer does not hold still: at the decoding a deployment inherits, a third of patients change severity category between two draws of one prompt and one in five crosses the line from watchful waiting to treatment. We read the four together as one failure, and name the gap between case-level plausibility and population-level failure the coherence-fidelity …