ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Decision Support Framework for Quality Assurance and Enhancement of Therapeutic Artificial Intelligence Systems: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Therapeutic chatbots are increasingly deployed across digital mental health services, yet most evaluation efforts remain diagnostic rather than actionable. Organizations lack structured pathways to translate evaluation findings into validated quality improvements aligned with health care quality assurance requirements. Objective: This study aims to introduce EvaluationPlus, a decision support framework that operationalizes a reproducible evaluation-to-enhancement loop for therapeutic artificial intelligence systems. We aimed to demonstrate its feasibility through expert-guided diagnosis, multi-large language model (LLM) enhancement mapping, and within-subject validation. Methods: Using the bilingual mental health chatbot Dr. CareSam (GPT 4.0-based), we conducted 3 iterative enhancement cycles. Two licensed clinical psychologists performed structured diagnostic reviews using think-aloud protocols to identify competency-specific deficits across a 7-dimension therapeutic competency rubric. Three LLMs (GPT 4.0, Claude 4.0 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash) generated prescriptive enhancement strategies aligned with identified gaps. A participant-blinded, within-subject A/B validation study with Korean graduate students from the Department of Applied Artificial Intelligence, Sungkyunkwan University (N=15; 16 recruited, 1 excluded; IRB-approved) compared baseline and enhanced versions across standardized clinical scenarios spanning mild anxiety, to crisis-level presentations. Results: The enhanced system demonstrated substantial improvement in overall therapeutic quality, with mean scores increasing from 5.40 to 7.63 (Δ =+2.23 points, 41%; dz=0.881; 95% bootstrap CI [0.32-2.20]). Prespecified target dimensions - active listening and appropriate questions, personalization, and complex thinking - showed large-effect improvements (mean gain +3.04; dz range 0.96-1.08), significantly exceeding gains in nontargeted dimensions (+1.62; targeting differential +1.42 points). Directional improvement was observed in 13 of 15 participants (86.7%). User preference strongly favored the enhanced system (13/15, 86.7%), and expert clinical evaluation confirmed maintained safety and therapeutic appropriateness across four scenario severity levels (preference rate 75%; 3 of 4 scenarios). Cross-participant rating consistency improved substantially (coefficient of variation: 20% → 8.1%). Conclusions: EvaluationPlus demonstrates feasibility as a structured framework for iterative quality assurance of therapeutic artificial intelligence systems. By linking expert diagnostic procedures with prescriptive multi-LLM enhancement mapping and multistakeholder validation, the framework supports reproducible improvement cycles relevant to organizational oversight of digital mental health tools. Limitations include a small pilot sample, single-culture focus, and simulated crisis scenarios; future work should extend validation to diverse clinical populations and longitudinal outcome assessment.
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.