Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39632121›Full record

ArticleBMJ mental health2024

AI depictions of psychiatric diagnoses: a preliminary study of generative image outputs in Midjourney V.6 and DALL-E 3.

Matthew Flathers, Griffin Smith, Ellen Wagner, Carl Erik Fisher, John Torous

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Biases in an artificial intelligence image-generator's depictions of healthy aging and Alzheimer's.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  6. Reinforcing the stereotype: an analysis of AI-generated images of patients with obstructive sleep apnea.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthew FlathersBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Griffin SmithRhode Island School of Design, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Ellen WagnerHarvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Carl Erik FisherColumbia University, New York, New York, USA.
John TorousPsychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA jtorous@bidmc.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5362-7937

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis paper investigates how state-of-the-art generative artificial intelligence (AI) image models represent common psychiatric diagnoses. We offer key lessons derived from these representations to inform clinicians, researchers, generative AI companies, policymakers and the public about the potential impacts of AI-generated imagery on mental health discourse.

methodsWe prompted two generative AI image models, Midjourney V.6 and DALL-E 3 with isolated diagnostic terms for common mental health conditions. The resulting images were compiled and presented as examples of current AI behaviour when interpreting psychiatric terminology.

findingsThe AI models generated image outputs for most psychiatric diagnosis prompts. These images frequently reflected cultural stereotypes and historical visual tropes including gender biases and stigmatising portrayals of certain mental health conditions. DISCUSSION: These findings illustrate three key points. First, generative AI models reflect cultural perceptions of mental disorders rather than evidence-based clinical ones. Second, AI image outputs resurface historical biases and visual archetypes. Third, the dynamic nature of these models necessitates ongoing monitoring and proactive engagement to manage evolving biases. Addressing these challenges requires a collaborative effort among clinicians, AI developers and policymakers to ensure the responsible use of these technologies in mental health contexts. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As these technologies become increasingly accessible, it is crucial for mental health professionals to understand AI's capabilities, limitations and potential impacts. Future research should focus on quantifying these biases, assessing their effects on public perception and developing strategies to mitigate potential harm while leveraging the insights these models provide into collective understandings of mental illness.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMental DisordersHumansAdult psychiatryCross-Sectional StudiesData Interpretation, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID39632121
PMCPMC11624728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.