Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40525210›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2025

Artificial intelligence vs. human expert: Licensed mental health clinicians' blinded evaluation of AI-generated and expert psychological advice on quality, empathy, and perceived authorship.

Ludwig Franke Föyen, Emma Zapel, Mats Lekander, Erik Hedman-Lagerlöf, Elin Lindsäter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2025. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Ludwig Franke FöyenDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Emma ZapelDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mats LekanderDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Erik Hedman-LagerlöfDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Elin LindsäterDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The use of artificial intelligence for psychological advice shows promise for enhancing accessibility and reducing costs, but it remains unclear whether AI-generated advice can match the quality and empathy of experts. Method: In a blinded, comparative cross-sectional design, licensed psychologists and psychotherapists assessed the quality, empathy, and authorship of psychological advice, which was either AI-generated or authored by experts. Results: AI-generated responses were rated significantly more favorable for emotional (OR = 1.79, 95 % CI [1.1, 2.93], Conclusions: AI demonstrates potential to match expert performance in asynchronous written psychological advice, but biases favoring perceived expert authorship may hinder its broader acceptance. Mitigating these biases and evaluating AI's trustworthiness and empathy are important next steps for safe and effective integration of AI in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDigital healthEmpathyMental healthPsychological adviceTherapeutic Alliance

Identifiers

PMID40525210
PMCPMC12169703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.