A large language model (LLM) can rate depression severity directly from a social media post, or mark which clinical criteria the post shows and let a simple rule turn the count into a label. The latter is easier to audit because a clinician can check each marked criterion. We compare these approaches on two Reddit corpora using three LLMs (from 9B to frontier scale) and two questionnaires (PHQ-9, BDI-II), and measure agreement with quadratic weighted kappa. For the two frontier models, criteria extraction scores above chain-of-thought on one corpus only when its decision thresholds are fitted on labeled data. Neither model's gain is significant, with or without recalibrating chain-of-thought on the same labels. With thresholds fixed a priori from PHQ-9's criteria, extraction shows no gain on either corpus, even where models mark over two criteria per post. The 9B model behaves differently on a corpus from depression communities. It labels most posts as severe, whether prompted directly or with chain-of-thought, while the a priori rule, which uses no labels, beats both. After chain-of-thought is recalibrated on the same labels, no significant gap remains, consistent with a calibration effect. Yet higher ordinal agreement does not ensure better detection of severe cases. PHQ-9 criteria extraction misses most severe posts, and moving from direct prompting to chain-of-thought and then to extraction increases misses in nearly all comparisons. On one corpus, a relabeled stress dataset, a model using that dataset's own features, some computed from the post text, is not significantly different from frontier criteria extraction under the a priori rule.

翻译：暂无翻译