ArticleChild and adolescent mental health2025
Commentary: Industry collaboration: A call for 'industry literacy' - a commentary on Bourgaize et al. (2025).
Article in Child and adolescent mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Debate: Conversational AI and young people's mental health - friend or foe? - conversational AI and young people's mental health: the case for clinically informed design.Child and adolescent mental health · 2026Article
- European child and adolescent psychiatry in a digital world.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In response to the article by Bourgaize et al. (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2025) on academic collaborations with technology companies, we argue that we need to move beyond guidance for individual researchers; instead, there is an urgent need to develop a research infrastructure, to manage the risks of collaborating with corporations whose profits rely on the very products under investigation. Institutional transparency is essential as well as consideration of the wider ecosystem regarding conflicts of interest. Much can be learned from historical examples of 'corporate playbook' techniques, such as the gambling and tobacco industries. Specialist ethical oversight is urgently needed, which considers broader questions around commercial influence, and minimum open science standards should be mandated by research institutions, in order to preserve public trust in science. An overarching national center of expertise is needed to develop guidance, together with legislation to enforce data sharing for independent research. Lastly, we suggest detailed questions should be asked about who may have the most to lose and the most to gain from a collaboration; academics should equip themselves not just with digital literacy, but also with 'industry literacy' to navigate this complex relationship.
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.