Reading Anxiety or Reading the Label? Comparing Fine-Tuned and Frontier Models for Anxiety Detection on Social Media

Abstract

Anxiety is among the most common mental health conditions, and people often write about it online well before seeking clinical help. Practitioners building detection tools face a concrete choice: call a frontier commercial model, fine-tune a smaller model in-house, or deploy a conventional classifier. We compare six conditions spanning all three on a held-out Reddit test set under a single controlled protocol. We also identify a confound in how this task is evaluated. In the corpus used here, 69.3% of anxiety-labelled posts contain the word "anxiety" or a variant, roughly twice the rate of comparable conditions, so a classifier can score well by keyword matching rather than by modelling the language of the condition. We therefore evaluate every model twice, on original text and with those terms deleted, and report the difference as lexical dependence. A frontier model leads on anxiety F1 (0.846), but a 110M-parameter domain-adapted encoder reaches 0.831 with no external API dependency, and mental-health domain pretraining accounts for only 0.7 of those points. Lexical dependence spans 8.6 to 25.4 points and does not track model capability: the LoRA fine-tuned 3B model is the most keyword-dependent condition tested, above even a TF-IDF classifier, while the frontier zero-shot model is the least. Published figures on this corpus are therefore upper bounds, and the inflation is largest for the fine-tuned models such figures typically report.