Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in mental health, showing promise in assessing disorders. However, concerns exist regarding their accuracy, reliability, and fairness. Societal biases and underrepresentation of certain populations may impact LLMs. Because LLMs are already used for clinical practice, including decision support, it is important to investigate potential biases to ensure a responsible use of LLMs. Anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN) show a lifetime prevalence of 1%-2%, affecting more women than men. Among men, homosexual men face a higher risk of eating disorders (EDs) than heterosexual men. However, men are underrepresented in ED research, and studies on gender, sexual orientation, and their impact on AN and BN prevalence, symptoms, and treatment outcomes remain limited. Objectives: We aimed to estimate the presence and size of bias related to gender and sexual orientation produced by a common LLM as well as a smaller LLM specifically trained for mental health analyses, exemplified in the context of ED symptomatology and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with AN or BN. Methods: We extracted 30 case vignettes (22 AN and 8 BN) from scientific papers. We adapted each vignette to create 4 versions, describing a female versus male patient living with their female versus male partner (2 × 2 design), yielding 120 vignettes. We then fed each vignette into ChatGPT-4 and to “MentaLLaMA” based on the Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) architecture thrice with the instruction to evaluate them by providing responses to 2 psychometric instruments, the RAND-36 questionnaire assessing HRQoL and the eating disorder examination questionnaire. With the resulting LLM-generated scores, we calculated multilevel models with a random intercept for gender and sexual orientation (accounting for within-vignette variance), nested in vignettes (accounting for between-vignette variance). Results: In ChatGPT-4, the multilevel model with 360 observations indicated a significant association with gender for the RAND-36 mental composite summary (conditional means: 12.8 for male and 15.1 for female cases; 95% CI of the effect –6.15 to -0.35; P=.04) but neither with sexual orientation (P=.71) nor with an interaction effect (P=.37). We found no indications for main effects of gender (conditional means: 5.65 for male and 5.61 for female cases; 95% CI –0.10 to 0.14; P=.88), sexual orientation (conditional means: 5.63 for heterosexual and 5.62 for homosexual cases; 95% CI –0.14 to 0.09; P=.67), or for an interaction effect (P=.61, 95% CI –0.11 to 0.19) for the eating disorder examination questionnaire overall score (conditional means 5.59-5.65 95% CIs 5.45 to 5.7). MentaLLaMA did not yield reliable results. Conclusions: LLM-generated mental HRQoL estimates for AN and BN case vignettes may be biased by gender, with male cases scoring lower despite no real-world evidence supporting this pattern. This highlights the risk of bias in generative artificial intelligence in the field of mental health. Understanding and mitigating biases related to gender and other factors, such as ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are crucial for responsible use in diagnostics and treatment recommendations.

Background: As digital mental health delivery becomes increasingly prominent, a solid evidence base regarding its efficacy is needed. Objective: This study aims to synthesize evidence on the comparative efficacy of systemic psychotherapy interventions provided via digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities. Methods: We followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX and conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included randomized controlled trials comparing mental, behavioral, and somatic outcomes of systemic psychotherapy interventions using self- and therapist-guided digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials. Where appropriate, we calculated standardized mean differences and risk ratios. We calculated separate mean differences for nonaggregated analysis. Results: We screened 3633 references and included 12 articles reporting on 4 trials (N=754). Participants were youths with poor diabetic control, traumatic brain injuries, increased risk behavior likelihood, and parents of youths with anorexia nervosa. A total of 56 outcomes were identified. Two trials provided digital intervention delivery via videoconferencing: one via an interactive graphic interface and one via a web-based program. In total, 23% (14/60) of risk of bias judgments were high risk, 42% (25/60) were some concerns, and 35% (21/60) were low risk. Due to heterogeneity in the data, meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate for 96% (54/56) of outcomes, which were interpreted qualitatively instead. Nonaggregated analyses of mean differences and CIs between delivery modalities yielded mixed results, with superiority of the digital delivery modality for 18% (10/56) of outcomes, superiority of the face-to-face delivery modality for 5% (3/56) of outcomes, equivalence between delivery modalities for 2% (1/56) of outcomes, and neither superiority of one modality nor equivalence between modalities for 75% (42/56) of outcomes. Consequently, for most outcome measures, no indication of superiority or equivalence regarding the relative efficacy of either delivery modality can be made at this stage. We further meta-analytically compared digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities for attrition (risk ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.52-2.03; P=.93) and number of sessions attended (standardized mean difference –0.11; 95% CI –1.13 to –0.91; P=.83), finding no significant differences between modalities, while CIs falling outside the range of the minimal important difference indicate that equivalence cannot be determined at this stage. Conclusions: Evidence on digital and face-to-face modalities for systemic psychotherapy interventions is largely heterogeneous, limiting conclusions regarding the differential efficacy of digital and face-to-face delivery. Nonaggregated and meta-analytic analyses did not indicate the superiority of either delivery condition. More research is needed to conclude if digital and face-to-face delivery modalities are generally equivalent or if—and in which contexts—one modality is superior to another.

Attention in social interactions is directed by social cues such as the face or eye region of an interaction partner. Several factors that influence these attentional biases have been identified in the past. However, most findings are based on paradigms with static stimuli and no interaction potential. Therefore, the current study investigated the influence of one of these factors, namely facial affect in natural social interactions using an evaluated eye-tracking setup. In a sample of 35 female participants, we examined how individuals’ gaze behavior responds to changes in the facial affect of an interaction partner trained in affect modulation. Our goal was to analyze the effects on attention to facial features and to investigate their temporal dynamics in a natural social interaction. The study results, obtained from both aggregated and dynamic analyses, indicate that facial affect has only subtle influences on gaze behavior during social interactions. In a sample with high measurement precision, these findings highlight the difficulties of capturing the subtleties of social attention in more naturalistic settings. The methodology used in this study serves as a foundation for future research on social attention differences in more ecologically valid scenarios.

In the present study, we tested whether processing information in the context of an ancestral survival scenario enhances episodic memory performance in older adults and in stroke patients. In an online study (Experiment 1), healthy young and older adults rated words according to their relevance to an ancestral survival scenario, and subsequent free recall performance was compared to a pleasantness judgment task and a moving scenario task in a within-subject design. The typical survival processing effect was replicated: Recall rates were highest in the survival task, followed by the moving and the pleasantness judgment task. Although older adults showed overall lower recall rates, there was no evidence for differences between the age groups in the condition effects. Experiment 2 was conducted in a neurological rehabilitation clinic with a sample of patients who had suffered from a stroke within the past 5 months. On the group level, Experiment 2 revealed no significant difference in recall rates between the three conditions. However, when accounting for overall memory abilities and executive function, independently measured in standardized neuropsychological tests, patients showed a significant survival processing effect. Furthermore, only patients with high executive function scores benefitted from the scenario tasks, suggesting that intact executive function may be necessary for a mnemonic benefit. Taken together, our results support the idea that the survival processing task – a well-studied task in the field of experimental psychology – may be incorporated into a strategy to compensate for memory dysfunction.

Introduction: This study examined the sources and factors of resilience in Russian sexual and gender minorities. We hypothesized that, through their involvement in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community (source of resilience), LGBT people establish friendships that provide them with social support (factor of resilience), which in turn should contribute to their mental health. Method: The study sample consisted of 1,127 young and middle-aged LGBT adults (18 to 50 years) from Russia. We collected the data online and anonymously. Results: Partial mediation could be confirmed. LGBT people who were involved in “their” community reported more social support from friends, which partially mediated the positive association between community involvement and mental health. The mediation remained significant when we controlled for demographics and outness as potential covariates. Additional analyses showed that the present sample reported lower mental health but not less social support than Russian nonminority samples recruited in previous research. Conclusion: Our study underlines the importance of the LGBT community in times of increasing stigmatization of sexual and gender minorities.