ArticleJMIR mental health2026
Automated Safety Testing and Reporting Application for Conversational Safety Monitoring of Generative AI Tools for Mental Health: Development and Validation Study.
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.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-based conversational tools are rapidly expanding within mental health care as a means of increasing access and scalability. At the same time, these systems introduce distinct safety risks arising from both user disclosures (eg, self-harm ideation) and inappropriate or inadequate AI responses.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and evaluate the Automated Safety Testing and Reporting Application (ASTRA), an external system intended to identify clinically relevant risk behaviors across entire AI-mediated mental health conversations.
methodsASTRA was tested on a dataset of 100 synthetic therapeutic conversations written by licensed clinicians to reflect risk behaviors and harmful responses between users and AI tools. Conversations varied in length and included both subtle and overt risk behavior examples across 8 predefined categories. Human coder consensus ratings served as the reference standard. ASTRA's classifications were evaluated across 2 prompt iterations using standard diagnostic performance metrics and agreement statistics.
resultsASTRA demonstrated consistently high concordance with expert human ratings across all categories. Accuracy exceeded 0.90 for all risk behavior categories examined, with specificity uniformly high and sensitivity varying by category (range 0.55-1.00). Agreement beyond chance was substantial to almost perfect between ASTRA and human raters (κ=0.65-1.00). Detection of user self-harm indicators was particularly accurate, even in conversations where risk was expressed subtly.
conclusionsIn this initial validation study, ASTRA reliably identified multiple forms of mental health-related risk behaviors at the conversation level. These findings support the feasibility of independent safety monitoring systems as a complement to AI tools used in mental health contexts and underscore the need for further evaluation using larger and real-world datasets.
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.