Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42331776›Full record

ArticleTranslational psychiatry2026

A scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence as a psychological assessment tool.

Vinayak Dev, Nathan S Consedine, Yuan Gao, Rajitha Narayanasamy, Anna Serlachius

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

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

5 authors.

Vinayak DevDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand. vinayak.dev@auckland.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8412-5764
Nathan S ConsedineDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7691-0938
Yuan GaoDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-4861-5313
Rajitha NarayanasamyDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-3557-7442
Anna SerlachiusDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-8351

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceMental DisordersHumans

Identifiers

PMID42331776
PMCPMC13538687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.