ReviewCurrent opinion in psychiatry2026
Opportunities and risks of large language models in digital interventions for substance use disorders.
Review in Current opinion in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative Large Language Models in Mental Health Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence Use in Routine Mental Health Practice Among Australian Clinicians: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into digital mental health tools, yet their role in substance use disorder (SUD) interventions remains poorly understood. This review synthesizes emerging evidence on the opportunities and risks of applying LLMs across the digital SUD care continuum. RECENT
findingsStudies report promising applications in early detection, personalized support, continuous monitoring, and relapse prevention. LLMs demonstrate capacity to extract substance-use signals from natural language, generate supportive and motivational responses, and interpret narrative data for patient-reported outcomes. However, risks are substantial. LLMs can produce inaccurate or hallucinated content, may reinforce stigma or demographic bias, and can generate misleading or potentially unsafe advice. Privacy concerns are amplified in SUD contexts, where sensitive data are often managed outside regulated healthcare systems. Existing regulatory frameworks such as the EU AI Act or U.S. device regulations, do not yet provide clear governance for anonymous, AI-supported SUD interventions. SUMMARY: LLMs have potential to expand scalable, low-threshold support for SUDs, but their safe deployment requires validation, bias mitigation, transparent data governance, and robust human oversight. Evidence remains preliminary, and clinical integration should proceed cautiously.
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.