Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42564577›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2026

Artificial intelligence in psychiatry: clinical applications, limitations, and ethical challenges.

Pedro Morgado

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Pedro MorgadoLife and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming psychiatric research and clinical practice, offering new capabilities in areas such as diagnosis, risk prediction, digital phenotyping, and treatment personalization. In the domain of diagnostic classification, machine learning models have demonstrated classification accuracy across major psychiatric disorders in internally validated research settings. In a distinct and non-equivalent domain, large language model-assisted clinical decision support has shown performance comparable to expert clinicians in a specific, structured benchmark task; this finding should not be generalized to open-ended clinical practice. However, this technological promise is shadowed by profound methodological, clinical, and ethical limitations. The majority of AI models in neuroimaging-based psychiatry carry a high risk of bias, external validation remains rare, and evidence of real-world clinical impact is scarce. Critically, the field is developing in a context where vast repositories of sensitive mental health data are increasingly controlled by large technology corporations. This trend raises urgent, yet underexplored, questions about data governance and commercial use, as well as broader concerns around accountability and long-term behavioral surveillance. Furthermore, the reliance of AI systems on statistical distributions to define normality risks encoding a historically unstable and culturally contingent concept as a medical standard, with particular consequences for the pathologization of human diversity. This perspective article argues that the psychiatric community must assume an active governance role, advocating for patient-centered data frameworks that do not reduce human suffering to a monetizable data stream.

Indexed as

algorithmic biasartificial intelligencedata governancedigital phenotypingmental health ethicspsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID42564577
PMCPMC13443063

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.