Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42180312›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

AI-driven skill volatility and the emergence of re-skilling fatigue: the human cost of perpetual learning.

Tittu Elizabath Biju, Anusree Ambady, Thomas K V

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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

3 authors.

Tittu Elizabath Biju *Department of Commerce, Marian College Kuttikkanam Autonomous, Kuttikkanam, India.
Anusree Ambady *Department of Commerce, Marian College Kuttikkanam Autonomous, Kuttikkanam, India.
Thomas K VDepartment of Commerce, BCM College Kottayam, Kottayam, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping knowledge-intensive work by automating, augmenting, and reconfiguring core professional activities. While continuous reskilling is widely promoted as a solution to AI-driven disruption, little attention has been paid to its cumulative psychological costs. This paper introduces the concept of reskilling fatigue to explain the human consequences of persistent skill volatility among Established Knowledge Professionals (EKPs), mid-career professionals whose roles, identities, and value are grounded in accumulated expertise and professional judgment. Based on Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory and Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, the paper conceptualizes an AI-induced reskilling loop in which ongoing technological change leads to skill erosion, continuous reskilling demands, cognitive and emotional depletion, and reinforced learning as a defensive response to perceived obsolescence. Unlike restoring stability, this cycle intensifies anxiety, undermines mastery, and erodes professional confidence. As a contribution to theory and practice, the paper advances a set of sustainable, collective strategies such as role-linked learning, protected learning time, skill prioritization, and phased AI adoption to interrupt the reskilling loop and redistribute adaptive demands across organizations. By reframing reskilling as a shared, supported, and bounded process, this paper highlights pathways through which AI-driven change can foster long-term career resilience, professional identity renewal, and sustainable human-AI integration.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceconservation of resources theoryestablished knowledge professionalsjob demand-resources theoryreskilling fatigue

Identifiers

PMID42180312
PMCPMC13194435

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.