ArticleEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2025
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatric Research and Practice: A Qualitative Interview Study with Experts from Psychiatry, Computer Science and Philosophy in Germany.
Article in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) in psychiatry holds promise for diagnosis, therapy, and the categorization of mental disorders. At the same time, it raises significant theoretical and ethical concerns. The debate appears polarized, with proponents and critics seemingly irreconcilably opposed. On the one hand, AI is heralded as a transformative force poised to revolutionize psychiatric research and practice. On the other hand, it is depicted as a harbinger of dehumanization. To better understand this dichotomy, it is essential to identify and critically examine the underlying arguments. To what extent does the use of AI challenge the theoretical assumptions of psychiatric diagnostics? What implications does it have for patient care, and how does it influence the professional self-concept of psychiatrists?
methodsTo explore these questions, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with experts from psychiatry, computer science, and philosophy. The findings were analyzed using a structuring qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe analysis focuses on the significance of AI for psychiatric diagnosis and care, as well as on its implications for the identity of psychiatry. We identified different lines of argument suggesting that expert views on AI in psychiatry hinge on the types of data considered relevant and on whether core human capacities in diagnosis and treatment are viewed as replicable by AI.
conclusionsThe results provide a mapping of diverse perspectives, offering a basis for more detailed analysis of theoretical and ethical issues of AI in psychiatry, as well as for the adaptation of psychiatric education.
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.