ArticleBrain sciences2024
Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Psychotic Disorders Using Artificial Intelligence Methods: A Scoping Review.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of artificial intelligence and psychosocial functioning in psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Using AI to Detect Psychosis Relapse: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Impact of financial deprivation in first-episode psychosis: a prospective 4-year follow-up study.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence approaches to predicting treatment non-adherence in chronic diseases: a narrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Developing and validating a machine learning pharmaceutical therapy recommender system for US-based hospital in-patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Neurocognition as a major predictor of 8-week response to antipsychotics for drug-naïve first-episode schizophrenia using machine learning.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy and Treatment Efficacy in Mental Health: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Model Tools and Mental Health Professionals.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- The role of AI-driven art therapy in supporting autism, mental health, and emotional well-being: An umbrella review.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychotic disorders are major psychiatric disorders that can impact multiple domains including physical, social, and psychological functioning within individuals with these conditions. Being able to better predict the outcomes of psychotic disorders will allow clinicians to identify illness subgroups and optimize treatment strategies in a timely manner.
objectiveIn this scoping review, we aimed to examine the accuracy of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) methods in predicting the clinical outcomes of patients with psychotic disorders as well as determine the relevant predictors of these outcomes.
methodsThis review was guided by the PRISMA Guidelines for Scoping Reviews. Seven electronic databases were searched for relevant published articles in English until 1 February 2024.
resultsThirty articles were included in this review. These studies were mainly conducted in the West (63%) and Asia (37%) and published within the last 5 years (83.3%). The clinical outcomes included symptomatic improvements, illness course, and social functioning. The machine learning models utilized data from various sources including clinical, cognitive, and biological variables such as genetic, neuroimaging measures. In terms of main machine learning models used, the most common approaches were support vector machine, random forest, logistic regression, and linear regression models. No specific machine learning approach outperformed the other approaches consistently across the studies, and an overall range of predictive accuracy was observed with an AUC from 0.58 to 0.95. Specific predictors of clinical outcomes included demographic characteristics (gender, socioeconomic status, accommodation, education, and employment); social factors (activity level and interpersonal relationships); illness features (number of relapses, duration of relapses, hospitalization rates, cognitive impairments, and negative and disorganization symptoms); treatment (prescription of first-generation antipsychotics, high antipsychotic doses, clozapine, use of electroconvulsive therapy, and presence of metabolic syndrome); and structural and functional neuroimaging abnormalities, especially involving the temporal and frontal brain regions.
conclusionsThe current review highlights the potential and need to further refine AI and machine learning models in parsing out the complex interplay of specific variables that contribute to the clinical outcome prediction of psychotic disorders.
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.