ArticleJMIR medical education2025
AI in Psychiatric Education and Training From 2016 to 2024: Scoping Review of Trends.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence-generated vignettes depicting patient chatbot use in psychiatric contexts.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Susceptibility of Assessment Types to AI-Generated Content in Digital Health and Health Information Management Education: Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Japanese Clinical Note Styles Between Physicians and Large Language Models Using Identical Psychiatric Cases: Quantitative Text Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Generative AI in psychiatric education: balancing risks and benefits for responsible integration.Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing both clinical psychiatry and the education of medical professionals. However, little is currently known about how AI is being discussed in the education and training of psychiatry for medical students and doctors around the world. Objective: This paper aims to provide a snapshot of the available data on this subject as of 2024. A deliberately broad definition of AI was adopted to capture the widest range of relevant literature and applications, including machine learning, natural language processing, and generative AI tools. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using both peer-reviewed publications from PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases, and gray literature sources. The criterion for inclusion was a description of how AI could be applied to education or training in psychiatry. Results: A total of 26 records published between 2016 and 2024 were included. The key themes identified were (1) the imperative for an AI curriculum for students or doctors training in psychiatry, (2) uses of AI to develop educational resources, (3) uses of AI to develop clinical skills, (4) uses of AI for assessments, (5) academic integrity or ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI, and (6) tensions relating to competing priorities and directions. Conclusions: Although a nascent field, it is clear that AI will increasingly impact assessment, clinical skills training, and the development of teaching resources in psychiatry. Training curricula will need to reflect the new knowledge and skills required for future clinical practice. Educators will need to be mindful of academic integrity risks and to emphasize development of critical thinking skills. Attitudes of psychiatrists toward the rise of AI in training remain underexplored.
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.