ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Generative AI in psychiatric education: balancing risks and benefits for responsible integration.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) chatbots, including ChatGPT and DeepSeek, are rapidly reshaping psychiatric education across the continuum from medical students to practicing psychiatrists. These tools offer learners unprecedented opportunities for personalized learning, clinical simulation, and research support. However, their integration also raises substantial risks related to data privacy, content reliability, over reliance on automation, and ethical and regulatory gaps. This perspective argues that neither uncritical adoption nor outright rejection is appropriate. Drawing on emerging evidence and our firsthand experience as psychiatric educators, we propose a balanced framework characterized by three interconnected principles: strong human oversight, comprehensive AI literacy training, and robust institutional governance. We outline five categories of risk, discuss potential benefits specific to psychiatric training, and offer six actionable institutional recommendations. The goal is not to deter innovation but to ensure that GenAI tools enhance rather than replace the clinical judgment, empathy, and professional accountability that lie at the heart of psychiatric practice.
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.