Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41889427›Full record

ArticleDigital health

When the therapist hallucinates: AI, psychedelics, and the risks of unsupervised digital mental health care.

Michael R MacIntyre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. 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

1 author.

Michael R MacIntyreHealth Sciences Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9917-4590

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As direct-to-consumer ketamine prescriptions obtained via telehealth in the United States, along with psychedelic support, proliferate, some patients are turning to general-purpose chatbots as de facto "therapists" in unmonitored settings. These AI-guided altered-state sessions carry significant ethical, clinical, and legal risks. Current AI tools are not licensed professionals, lack consistent reliability, and cannot provide emergency support. Combined with mind-altering drugs, their unpredictability can precipitate harm rather than relieve distress. The convergence of these innovations (psychedelic therapeutics and generative AI) creates an unregulated frontier in mental health care. Traditional safeguards in psychedelic therapy rely on "set and setting," a supportive mindset and environment guided by trained humans. When that role is replaced by AI, both are fundamentally disrupted. Clinicians should recognize that patients are already experimenting with AI in this way, often without disclosure or oversight. When screening for psychedelic use or discussing at-home treatment, providers should anticipate the risks of inadequate monitoring, unsafe crisis response, and blurred therapeutic boundaries with AI chatbots. Even if clinicians do not endorse or recommend AI tools, they may bear responsibility once patient use is known. Providers should therefore counsel patients about these dangers, document safety discussions, and routinely ask about AI use as part of risk assessment.

Indexed as

altered states of consciousnessArtificial intelligencedigital psychotherapygenerative AI chatbotspsychedelicstherapeutic boundary violationsunsupervised digital therapy

Identifiers

PMID41889427
PMCPMC13013982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.