Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41488581›Full record

ReviewPostepy psychiatrii neurologii2025

Ethical aspects of the application of artificial intelligence in psychiatry.

Maciej Stępień, Andrzej Silczuk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Postepy psychiatrii neurologii, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Maciej StępieńDepartment of Community Psychiatry, Faculty of Life Sciences, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4425-3411
Andrzej SilczukDepartment of Community Psychiatry, Faculty of Life Sciences, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7048-8094

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to discuss current applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in psychiatry and the ethical issues involved. It also aims to identify the need for further research and collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and technology developers to safely and effectively implement AI in the care of patients with mental disorders. Views: The application of AI in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses is a promising direction for modern psychiatry, but it involves many ethical challenges. AI is being used in a variety of areas, such as early disease detection, personalization of treatment and monitoring the progress of therapy. Examples include recognizing patterns in patient data, detecting the early stages of neurodegenerative diseases, and using digital games and mobile apps to treat mental disorders such as depression and anxiety disorders. Despite the growing role of AI, there are a number of controversies related to the lack of empathy its use brings to patient in patient interactions, the threat to data privacy, and the opacity of decision-making processes in AI algorithms. Ethical challenges also include the risk of over-reliance on technology and the reduced role of human specialists in psychiatry. Conclusions: The application of AI in psychiatry comes with opportunities as well as serious ethical challenges. Ensuring the transparency of algorithms, protecting patients' privacy and clearly defining responsibility for decisions made with the support of AI remain crucial. Only a responsible approach to these issues will allow the full potential of AI to be realized without compromising basic ethical values.

Indexed as

algorithmautonomyethical issuesprivacyresponsibility

Identifiers

PMID41488581
PMCPMC12757835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.