Trial reportBMC psychiatry2026
A pilot randomized controlled trial of AI-delivered vs. human-delivered iCBT for depression in young adults.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis randomized controlled trial compared AI-driven and human peer counselor-delivered internet-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (iCBT) for depressive symptoms (primary outcome) in young adults. Addressing a gap in literature, we explored the comparative effectiveness and acceptability/perception of these two modalities of online intervention.
methodsNinety young adults were randomized to AI-driven iCBT, human peer counselor iCBT (participant-blinded), or a waitlist control. Interventions consisted of eight hours over four weeks. Depressive symptoms (primary outcome), suicidal ideation, and self-efficacy were assessed at baseline, week two, and week four. Qualitative analysis explored participant perceptions.
resultsBoth iCBT interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between intervention groups at week two. The AI group improved significantly from baseline to week two (p = 0.004) but showed no further significant reduction by week four (a plateau effect), while the human group demonstrated continued improvement. Qualitative analysis indicated that participants valued AI’s convenience and accessibility but expressed concerns regarding its emotional understanding and personalization.
conclusionAI-iCBT shows promising short-term efficacy, comparable to human counseling up to week two, but its limitations in emotional perception and sustaining therapeutic momentum resulted in a plateau effect. Future AI development must focus on improving emotional interaction and personalized support.
trial registrationChiCTR2400088423. Registered on 19 August 2024.
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.