ArticlePsychiatry and clinical neurosciences2026
Ensuring generalizability and clinical utility in mental health care applications: Robust artificial intelligence-based treatment predictions in diverse psychosis populations.
Article in Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Comparative Effectiveness of Antipsychotic Medications in Patients With Schizophrenia (CATIE Schizophrenia Trial)
Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomized Trials to Compare Antipsychotic Treatments
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimArtificial Intelligence (AI)-based prediction models of treatment response promise to revolutionize psychiatric care by enabling personalized treatment, but very few have been thoroughly tested in different samples or compared to current clinical standards. Here we present models predicting antipsychotic response and assess their clinical utility in a robust methodological framework.
methodsMachine learning models were trained and cross-validated on clinical and sociodemographic data from 594 individuals with established schizophrenia (NCT00014001) and 323 individuals with first episode psychosis (NCT03510325). Models predicted four measures of antipsychotic response at 3 months after baseline. Clinical utility was assessed using decision curve and calibration curve analyses. Model performance was tested in a reduced feature space and across sex, ethnicity, antipsychotic, and symptom change subgroups to investigate model fairness.
resultsModels predicting total symptom severity (r = 0.4-0.68) and symptomatic remission (BAC = 62.4%-69%) performed well in both samples and externally validated successfully in the opposing cohort (r = 0.4-0.5, BAC = 63.5%-65.7%). Performance remained significant when the models were reduced to 8-9 key variables (r = 0.53 for total symptom severity, BAC = 65.3% for symptomatic remission). Models predicting symptomatic remission had a net benefit across risk thresholds of 0.5-0.9 and were moderately well-calibrated (ECE = 0.16-0.18). Model performance different across sex, ethnicity and medication subgroups.
conclusionsWe present a robust framework for training and assessing the clinical utility of prediction models in psychiatry. Our models generalize across different psychosis populations and show promising calibration and net benefit. However, performance disparities across demographic and treatment subgroups highlight the need for more diverse clinical samples to ensure equitable prediction.
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.