Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41941720›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2026

It Is the Journey, Not the Destination: Moving From End Points to Trajectories When Assessing Chatbot Mental Health Safety.

Hamilton Morrin, Joshua Au Yeung, Zarinah Agnew, Søren Dinesen Østergaard, Thomas A Pollak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Hamilton MorrinDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, England, SE5 8AB, United Kingdom, 07752 814088.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7801-0212
Joshua Au YeungKing's College Hospital, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9428-2146
Zarinah AgnewThe Collective Intelligence Project, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4657-2621
Søren Dinesen ØstergaardDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Central Jutland, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8032-6208
Thomas A PollakDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, England, SE5 8AB, United Kingdom, 07752 814088.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6171-0810

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: Large language models are rapidly becoming embedded in everyday life through artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots that people use for practical assistance and companionship, as well as for support with mental health and emotional well-being. Alongside clear benefits, clinicians and public reports increasingly describe a minority of users whose interactions seem to drift over days or weeks toward strongly questionable convictions, delusions, or suicidal crises. Importantly, clinically meaningful deterioration can occur even without overtly unsafe text outputs, via more insidious processes, such as compulsive use, sleep disruption, withdrawal from human contact, and progressive narrowing of attention around the chatbot relationship. In this Viewpoint, we argue that risk often arises not at a single tipping point but through trajectory effects that accumulate across extended dialogue and that prevailing safety evaluation approaches are misaligned with this reality because they primarily score risk at discrete conversational end points often reached through scripted dialogues lasting just a single turn or several turns. Mental health benchmarks and safety suites (including clinician-informed efforts) have advanced the field by testing refusal behavior, toxicity, and adversarial prompting. However, they often treat the last message as the unit of analysis and, therefore, miss when risk-relevant relational cues, signs of validation, contradiction handling, and shifts in certainty first emerge and how they compound. We propose that mental health safety assessment should shift from end points to trajectories by (1) treating the whole dialogue, not just the end result, as the focus of evaluation; (2) reporting turn-by-turn dynamics, such as delusion confirmation and harm enablement, and timing and persistence of safety interventions; and (3) calibrating short multiturn tests against longer, clinically realistic interaction sequences that can reveal context-length effects and drift. We further argue that transcript-only evaluation is insufficient in mental health contexts. Similar language can reflect very different internal states, and the relationship between expressed psychopathology and real-world harm is nonlinear. Therefore, safety research should incorporate proximal human outcomes following interactions (eg, shifts in certainty, openness to counterevidence, arousal, urge to continue, and subsequent sleep or behavior) and build a prospective clinical surveillance infrastructure that supports transcript donation with consent and linkage to health outcomes. Together, these steps would enable benchmarks that are clinically relevant and better aligned with the types of harms now being observed in real-world chatbot use.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMental HealthHumansLarge Language ModelsAIartificial intelligencechatbotsdelusionshuman-computer interactionpsychosisschizophreniasuicide

Identifiers

PMID41941720
PMCPMC13052998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.