ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2025
From Skepticism to Support: Addressing Clinician and Patient Concerns About AI in Eating Disorder Care.
Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to personalize treatment for eating disorders: A proof-of-concept study.Journal of affective disorders · 2026Article
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
Abstract
While Linardon and colleagues reveal cautious attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI) in eating disorder care, our recent empirical evidence suggests that specialized, expert-developed AI interventions can effectively support individuals at risk for eating disorders. However, unlike specialized AI, general-purpose AI (systems designed for broad tasks without specific clinical fine-tuning) often produces harmful content for eating disorder-related prompts, highlighting the need for specialized systems with strong ethical guardrails. Responsible AI integration requires balancing legitimate clinical concerns with evidence-based implementation, positioning AI not as a replacement for human providers, but as a complementary tool to expand access to quality care for the many individuals unable to receive traditional treatment.
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.