PreprintCited by 14Digital Mental Health InterventionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Evaluating Therabot: A Randomized Control Trial Investigating the Feasibility and Effectiveness of a Generative AI Therapy Chatbot for Depression, Anxiety, and Eating Disorder Symptom Treatment

Heinz, Michael V., Mackin, Daniel, Trudeau, Brianna, Bhattacharya, Sukanya, Wang, Yinzhou, Banta, Haley A., Jewett, Abi D., Salzhauer, Abigail +2 more·2024

Abstract

Background:Chatbots powered by generative AI (Gen-AI) hold promise for building highly personalized, effective mental health treatments at scale, while also addressing existing user engagement and retention issues common among digital therapeutics. We present the first RCT testing an expert-fine-tuned Gen-AI-powered chatbot, Therabot, for mental health treatment. Methods: Participants (N=210) were randomized to a four-week Therabot intervention (N=106) or waitlist control (WLC; N=104). Subjects were clinically stratified into major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), or clinically high risk feeding and eating disorder (CHR-FED) groups using baseline symptom severity. Primary outcomes included disorder-specific symptom changes from baseline to four and eight weeks. Secondary outcomes included user engagement, acceptability, and therapeutic alliance. Cumulative link mixed models examined differential changes pre- to post-intervention and from pre-intervention to follow-up, between the Therabot and WLC groups. Results: The Therabot group showed large and significantly greater reductions in MDD (d = 0.845-0.903), GAD (d = 0.794-0.840), and CHR-FED (d = 0.627-0.819) symptoms relative to controls at post-intervention and follow-up. Therabot was well received and well-utilized (average use >6 hours), and participants rated the therapeutic alliance comparable to human therapists. Conclusions: This is the first RCT demonstrating the effectiveness of a fully…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/pjqmr

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 34 · Cited by 14

Authors
Heinz, M. V., Mackin, D., Trudeau, B., Bhattacharya, S., Wang, Y., Banta, H. A., Jewett, A. D., Salzhauer, A., Griffin, T., & Jacobson, N. C.
Affiliations
Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
Heinz, Michael V.
Published
2024-06-14
OpenAlex
W4399686045
Cited by
14
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
generative AI chatbots, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, eating disorders, digital therapeutics, fine-tuned language models, therapeutic relationship, user engagement, acceptability, major depressive disorder

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review