ArticleBJPsych bulletin2025
Clinical Reach into the Cognitive Space (CRITiCS): outline conceptual framework for safe use of generative artificial intelligence in mental health decision-making.
Article in BJPsych bulletin, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS AND
methodAdvances in generative artificial intelligence, particularly through large language models, like GPT-4, have opened opportunities to develop cognitive agents to enhance clinical productivity, especially in complex secondary and tertiary care settings. However, as artificial intelligence begins to occupy the cognitive space traditionally held by human clinical reasoning, transparency becomes a significant concern. Unlike human decision-making, artificial intelligence-generated outputs may not be traceable to a transparent chain of clinical reasoning, potentially impacting safety if used without adequate 'clinician reach' into the reasoning space of artificial intelligence.
resultsWe highlight the need for a consensus framework to guide the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence in mental healthcare, which, it is argued, has cognitive demands and features distinct from physical medicine. We propose such a framework, Clinical Reach into the Cognitive Space (CRITiCS), to support clinician involvement in the deployment of these technologies. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This paper aims to spark dialogue and interest in both the clinical and artificial intelligence development communities.
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.