ArticleTranslational psychiatry2026
A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.
Article in Translational psychiatry, 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.
- A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.Translational psychiatry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental health disorders are highly prevalent worldwide, yet access to timely and effective mental health assessment (and care) remains limited. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers potential solutions, but the literature on its use in psychological assessment contexts has not been comprehensively mapped. This review aimed to systematise existing research, identify gaps, evaluate methodological limitations, and outline future directions. Using a librarian-approved search strategy, 7595 records were retrieved from major databases and screened independently by two coders. Following the eligibility assessment, 320 peer-reviewed articles were included. Studies showed wide variability in sample sizes (1-19,400,000) with no clear temporal trend. Most recruited clinical (21%) or general population (16%) samples from China (24%) or the United States (21%), and focused on depression (54%), anxiety (14%), suicidality (12%) or stress (8%). Supervised (75%) and deep learning (47%) approaches predominated, often with multiple algorithms compared (77% of the studies). Validation commonly relied on cross-validation and convergence with screening instruments, with relatively little use of DSM or ICD diagnostic criteria (71% used neither). Area-Under-the-Receiver-Operating-Characteristics-Curve (AUC) was the most frequently used performance metric, and unsupervised models achieved the highest average AUC. A marginal improvement in performance was evident from 2014 to 2025. Overall, AI shows promise as a psychological assessment tool, but progress is constrained by limited transparency, heavy reliance on self-report data, inconsistent use of validated diagnostic standards, a narrow focus on outcomes, and insufficient demographic and cultural analyses. Future research should prioritise interpretability, ethical and cultural responsiveness, multi-modal data, diverse samples, and clinically meaningful validation.
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.