AzTrials
AzTrials

Mental DisorderNCT06813066

Simulating Psychotherapeutic Sessions With Generative Artificial Intelligence

A study testing High Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors, Low Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors and Standard motivational interviewing in people with Mental Disorder, run by University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland at 1 site in Switzerland.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The study assesses the potential of using computational models, specifically large language models, to simulate psychotherapeutic sessions, aiming to improve therapy outcomes and advance therapist training through innovative technology. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Mental Disorder
What is being tested?
High Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors, Low Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors and Standard motivational interviewing
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
520 participants
Where
1 siteSwitzerland
Study dates
1 Feb 2025to 31 Aug 2025
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Simulation of psychotherapy sessions of conversations between an adult person presenting with a mental or behavioral health problem and a psychotherapist using large language models and 8 real-world transcripts

Who cannot join

  • Simulation protocols with severe simulation errors

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Switzerland1 site
  • University Hospital Basel

    Basel, 4031

Other trials in Switzerland

About this study

Official title: Simulating Psychotherapeutic Sessions With Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Proof-of-Concept Study of In Silico Psychotherapy Research

The study assesses the potential of using computational models, specifically large language models, to simulate psychotherapeutic sessions, aiming to improve therapy outcomes and advance therapist training through innovative technology.

Read the detailed description

Health research has evolved significantly, increasingly incorporating computational models that improve our understanding and effectiveness of medical interventions. This shift from traditional to computational methods represents a major advancement in medical research, offering a more sustainable and innovative approach for conceptual advances and therapeutic discovery. In silico models, based on scientific simulation, use computational algorithms to mimic real-world systems or processes. This virtual environment allows researchers to explore phenomena impractical, unethical, dangerous, expensive, or impossible to study otherwise.

Psychotherapy is widely acknowledged as a primary treatment for a variety of mental health conditions, from depression and anxiety to personality disorders, offering significant pathways to recovery and improved quality of life. Yet current methods have shown limited effectiveness, prompting a need for innovative research approaches. In silico psychotherapy research leverages computational simulations, large language models (LLMs), and generative artificial intelligence to explore and refine psychotherapeutic interventions. By simulating human-like conversations, this approach provides insights into therapy dynamics and holds promise for revolutionizing therapist training and expanding treatment techniques.

This study aims to establish a proof-of-concept for simulating psychotherapeutic sessions using LLMs, focusing specifically on motivational interviewing. It involves the simulation of 512 psychotherapy sessions using LLMs as well as 8 real-world psychotherapy transcripts. By modeling human interactions, the study seeks to enhance healthcare delivery, therapist training, and personalized psychotherapy.

Conditions
Mental Disorder
Being tested
High Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors, Low Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors, Standard motivational interviewing
Keywords
In silico Psychotherapy, Artificial intelligence (AI) applications, Motivational Interviewing
Medical subject headings
Mental Disorders

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • High Levels of Common Therapeutic FactorsBehavioural

    The therapist large language model (LLM) is designed to show high levels of empathy, warmth, and genuineness. This setup aims to create a supportive and trusting therapeutic environment to improve patient engagement. High levels of these positive factors are linked to better psychotherapy outcomes and a stronger therapist-patient relationship.

  • Low Levels of Common Therapeutic FactorsBehavioural

    The therapist LLM for this group is designed to show low levels of empathy, warmth, and genuineness. This setup aims to examine how a less supportive and empathetic therapist affects psychotherapy sessions. Lower levels of these positive behaviors can lead to reduced patient engagement and a weaker therapist-patient relationship, potentially hindering therapy outcomes.

  • Standard motivational interviewingBehavioural

    Motivational interviewing techniques as applied during the sessions on which the transcripts are based.

Study groups in NCT06813066
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
High Levels of Common Therapeutic FactorsExperimentalIn this group, the patient-large language model (LLM) interacted with a therapist-LLM prompted to exhibit high levels of positive common factors.
Receives: Behavioral: High Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors
Low Levels of Common Therapeutic FactorsExperimentalIn this group, the patient-large language model (LLM) interacted with a therapist-LLM prompted to exhibit low levels of positive common factors.
Receives: Behavioral: Low Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors
Transcripts of real intervention sessionsOtherThis group consists of published transcripts of real intervention sessions, in which motivational interview techniques have been applied.
Receives: Behavioral: Standard motivational interviewing

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Simulation's Accuracy in generating Psychotherapeutic Dialogues

    Assessment of the simulation's ability to accurately produce psychotherapeutic dialogues that adhere to the principles and techniques of motivational interviewing (MI), as determined by the average global scores of the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) code 4.2. The MITI code 4.2 includes various subscales, such as empathy and MI spirit, each scored on a scale from 1 to 5, with lower scores suggesting a need for improvement in MI delivery, while higher scores reflect stronger therapeutic skills and better patient outcomes.

    Measured: 12 months

Secondary outcomes (9)
  1. Number of Errors/Deviations

    The number of errors or deviations from expected psychotherapeutic practices is counted, providing a quantitative measure of simulation quality. This measure also serves as exclusion criteria from any other assessment.

    Measured: 12 months

  2. Metric of Verbal Content (Therapist)

    Assessment of the text metrics of the therapist, based on the number of sentences, words, syllables, characters, and lexical diversity.

    Measured: 12 months

  3. Metric of Verbal Content (Patient)

    Assessment of the text metrics of the patient, based on the number of sentences, words, syllables, characters, and lexical diversity.

    Measured: 12 months

  4. Turn-takings

    Assessment of the turn-takings, based on the number of exchanges between the therapist and patient within a session, indicating the dynamic interaction flow.

    Measured: 12 months

  5. Improvement of Patient

    Improvement of the patient is evaluated using an an observer-rated, circularly framed version of the Importance and Confidence Rulers, measuring the simulated patient's psychotherapeutic progress on a circular scale from 0 to 10. Lower scores indicate lower perceived importance or confidence, while higher scores suggest greater perceived importance or confidence in making the change.

    Measured: 12 months

  6. Credibility of Patient Behavior

    The credibility of the patient's behavior is estimated using a 0 to 10 scale indicating how likely the evaluator found that the participants are real humans or simulations, offering insight into the perceived authenticity of the simulated interactions. The credibility of the 8 real-world transcripts served as a comparison baseline/benchmark for this evaluation. Lower scores indicate lower authenticity of the patient large-language model's (LLM's) simulated behavior, while higher scores suggest higher authenticity of the patient LLM's simulated behavior.

    Measured: 12 months

  7. Credibility of Therapist Behavior

    The credibility of the therapist's behavior is estimated using a 0 to 10 scale indicating how likely the evaluator found that the participants are real humans or simulations, offering insight into the perceived authenticity of the simulated interactions. The credibility of the 8 real-world transcripts served as a comparison baseline/benchmark for this evaluation. Lower scores indicate lower authenticity of the therapist large-language model's (LLM's) simulated behavior, while higher scores suggest higher authenticity of the therapist LLM's simulated behavior.

    Measured: 12 months

  8. Manipulation Check

    The implemented level of psychotherapeutic common factors by the therapist-LLM is approximated using the Therapist Empathy Scale (TES) as rough manipulation checks. The TES rates the therapist's ability to understand and share a patient's feelings on a scale from 1 to 7. Higher scores indicate greater empathy, reflecting a stronger connection and understanding of the patient's emotions, while lower scores suggest less empathy.

    Measured: 12 months

  9. Manipulation Check

    The implemented level of psychotherapeutic common factors by the therapist-LLM is approximated using the Working Alliance Inventory Short Observer form (WAI-S-O) as rough manipulation checks. The Working Alliance Inventory uses 12 items evaluating the perceived therapeutic alliance between the patient and the therapist on a scale of 1 to 7.

    Measured: 12 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted6 Feb 2025
  2. Study start1 Feb 2025
  3. Primary completion31 Aug 2025
  4. Study completion31 Aug 2025

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Non-randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Participant
Enrolment
520 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06813066
Sponsor's protocol ID
0000-00000; th24Meinlschmidt
Status last verified
May 2026
First submitted
3 Feb 2025
Last updated
22 May 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing High Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors, Low Levels of Common Therapeutic Factors and Standard motivational interviewing in people with Mental Disorder, run by University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland at 1 site in Switzerland.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Simulation's Accuracy in generating Psychotherapeutic Dialogues (time frame: 12 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 May 2026.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in