SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
ONRAMP-AI-VRAR: an operational protocol for ethics and governance of AI-enabled immersive psychotherapy.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)–powered virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) therapies offer promising tools for treating mental health conditions. However, their immersive and data-intensive nature introduces novel ethical, legal, and cultural risks not adequately addressed by existing frameworks.
objectiveTo introduce a structured ethical framework—Operational Neuroethical Risk Assessment and Mitigation Protocol for AI in Virtual and Augmented Reality (ONRAMP-AI-VRAR)—for identifying, mitigating, and governing risks specific to immersive AI-driven psychotherapy.
methodsWe conducted a targeted literature review across PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library using Boolean combinations of XR, mental health, ethics/risk, and AI terms. From an initial pool of 913 records, 15 studies met inclusion criteria (ethical principles, governance, or mitigation strategies relevant to XR psychotherapy). Following peer review, 3 additional conceptually relevant works were incorporated (e.g., Beg and Verma) into the narrative synthesis (total n = 18). Findings were coded to research questions (ethical, governance, implementation) and mapped to ONRAMP-AI-VRAR’s steps/tools.
resultsONRAMP-AI-VRAR translates recurrent risks into practical processes and artifacts: (1) a Biometric Bias Audit Checklist, (2) a Cultural Sensitivity Rubric for immersive content, (3) a Risk Prioritization Matrix, and (4) a VR/AR Data Flow Mapping Template for transparency and compliance. The protocol embeds human-in-the-loop oversight through a Multidisciplinary Oversight Board and proposes a tiered implementation model (Full, Integrated, Practitioner-level) to enhance feasibility across settings. It aligns with international guidance, including the EU AI Act, GDPR, WHO/UNESCO ethics recommendations, OECD AI Principles, and the NIST AI RMF.
conclusionsONRAMP-AI-VRAR offers an actionable pathway to ethically deploy AI-enhanced immersive psychotherapy by integrating upfront audits, culturally aware design, layered consent, and continuous governance. The included tools are conceptual prototypes requiring psychometric validation. Future work should evaluate reliability, validity, and clinical impact across diverse populations and platforms. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.