Trial reportTranslational psychiatry2023
Out with AI, in with the psychiatrist: a preference for human-derived clinical decision support in depression care.
Trial report in Translational psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the role of professional identity in the implementation of clinical decision support systems-a narrative review.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- A cautionary tale for AI and machine learning in psychiatry.Translational psychiatry · 2026Review
- The integration of artificial intelligence with social Media: opportunities, challenges, and pathways for resource optimization and doctor-patient relationship enhancement in healthcare.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Ethical aspects of the application of artificial intelligence in psychiatry.Postepy psychiatrii neurologii · 2025Review
- Impacts of cognitive forcing and need for cognition on biased AI-assisted decision making about mental health emergencies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Physician Perspectives on the Potential Benefits and Risks of Applying Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatric Medicine: Qualitative Study.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- The Use of AI in Mental Health Services to Support Decision-Making: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Beyond Detection: Towards Actionable Sensing Research in Clinical Mental Healthcare.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2024Article
- Improving Mental Health Outcomes in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder in the Gulf States: A Review of the Role of Electronic Enablers in Monitoring Residual Symptoms.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Psychological Counseling: A Narrative Review and Governance Framework.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are enabling the development of clinical support tools (CSTs) in psychiatry to facilitate the review of patient data and inform clinical care. To promote their successful integration and prevent over-reliance, it is important to understand how psychiatrists will respond to information provided by AI-based CSTs, particularly if it is incorrect. We conducted an experiment to examine psychiatrists' perceptions of AI-based CSTs for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and to determine whether perceptions interacted with the quality of CST information. Eighty-three psychiatrists read clinical notes about a hypothetical patient with MDD and reviewed two CSTs embedded within a single dashboard: the note's summary and a treatment recommendation. Psychiatrists were randomised to believe the source of CSTs was either AI or another psychiatrist, and across four notes, CSTs provided either correct or incorrect information. Psychiatrists rated the CSTs on various attributes. Ratings for note summaries were less favourable when psychiatrists believed the notes were generated with AI as compared to another psychiatrist, regardless of whether the notes provided correct or incorrect information. A smaller preference for psychiatrist-generated information emerged in ratings of attributes that reflected the summary's accuracy or its inclusion of important information from the full clinical note. Ratings for treatment recommendations were also less favourable when their perceived source was AI, but only when recommendations were correct. There was little evidence that clinical expertise or familiarity with AI impacted results. These findings suggest that psychiatrists prefer human-derived CSTs. This preference was less pronounced for ratings that may have prompted a deeper review of CST information (i.e. a comparison with the full clinical note to evaluate the summary's accuracy or completeness, assessing an incorrect treatment recommendation), suggesting a role of heuristics. Future work should explore other contributing factors and downstream implications for integrating AI into psychiatric care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.