# Clinician-Grounded Quality Assurance for AI-Assisted Psychiatric Intake

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.21149 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.21149/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 4 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Roleplay-doh: Enabling Domain-Experts to Create LLM-simulated Patients via Eliciting and Adhering to Principles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00870/) (2024)
- [PatientSim: A Persona-Driven Simulator for Realistic Doctor-Patient Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17818/) (2025)
- [PsychiatryBench: A Multi-Task Benchmark for LLMs in Psychiatry](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.09711/) (2025)
- [Optimal Question Selection from a Large Question Bank for Clinical Field Recovery in Conversational Psychiatric Intake](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22067/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Before patients can use AI-assisted psychiatric intake systems, health systems need practical ways to routinely evaluate these tools against their clinical standards for quality assurance. Because clinicians may use different intake styles, evaluation for this task must (1) support comparison across interviewing approaches, (2) minimize clinician burden, and (3) measure clinically relevant performance for health systems deploying these technologies. We present a clinician-grounded evaluation platform built around a memory-augmented patient simulator for open-ended AI interviewing, InterviewPlayground. We created interactive patients using InterviewPlayground with our expert-authored vignettes, constructed a simulated intake platform for the interviews, and designed evaluation modalities relevant to intake. In a pilot of 6 clinicians in a 25-minute assessment compared to a GPT-based LLM intake interviewer, the LLM recovered more of the clinically relevant items embedded in the patient vignettes (88.0% vs. 38.9%), but made more clinical inferences not based on the interview (56.8% vs. 27.8%), and characterized identified safety concerns less often (33.3% vs. 66.7%), setting the stage for deployed quality assurance for this task.