ArticleBMJ mental health2026
Emulated trial of artificial intelligence use and subsequent depressive outcomes in a survey of US adults.
Article in BMJ 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Associations of artificial intelligence use at work with psychological distress, loneliness, and life satisfaction among employed US adults.Preventive medicine reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) use has been suggested to have adverse mental health consequences but a causal relationship has not been examined.
objectiveTo simulate a randomised controlled trial of AI use in a work, school or personal context by applying target trial emulation to multiple waves of data from a nationally representative survey.
methodsWe conducted a target trial emulation using non-probability survey data from three waves of a nationally representative survey conducted between 18 June 2024 and 8 January 2025. Participants aged ≥18 years reported generative AI use frequency at baseline. High-frequency use was defined as multiple times per week or more. The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9) at follow-up. Generalised causal forests assessed heterogeneity of treatment effects.
findingsAmong 19 099 participants assessed at baseline, 2862 (15.0%) reported AI use at least multiple times per week. A subset of 3109 (16.3%) returned for follow-up. In the primary weighted analysis, high-frequency use was not significantly associated with change in PHQ-9 score at follow-up (mean difference -0.18, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.59; p=0.65). Multiple sensitivity analyses using alternate outcome definitions also did not identify significant causal effects. Generalised causal forests yielded no significant evidence of heterogeneity of effect (p=0.81).
conclusionsIn an emulated randomised trial among US adults, generative AI use was not associated with subsequent depressive symptoms. This result does not support the premise that AI use causes greater depressive symptoms, although adverse outcomes among vulnerable individuals cannot be excluded. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: AI use is unlikely to cause increased depressive symptoms among most US adults. Continued monitoring should clarify potential risks among vulnerable populations.
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.