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
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Exactly half of the studies (n=13, including one study recruited partially students and partially nonstudents) focused on student populations.
“Exactly half of the studies [55] (n=13, including one study recruited partially students and partially nonstudents) focused on student populations”
From Generative AI Mental Health Chatbots as Therapeutic Tools: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Role in Reducing Mental Health Issues (2025) · cites this paper as [55]
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.
- ORCID
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- 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