Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42628031›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2026

A Human-Governed Clinical Informatics Framework for Safe AI-Assisted Mental Health Counseling: Secondary Framework Development and Requirement Mapping Study.

Mi-Ae Yang, Kang-Su Ha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 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

2 authors.

Mi-Ae YangDepartment of Science and Technology Convergence, Graduate School, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0006-8128-5731
Kang-Su HaDepartment of Psychiatry, Rainbow Hospital, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0006-3361-9477

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNatural language processing and large language model systems are increasingly used to support mental health documentation, screening, and follow-up planning. In counseling contexts, model outputs may influence diagnostic framing, risk recognition, and clinical record content. Static performance metrics and fluent generated summaries are not sufficient to support safe implementation without governance, safety gating, human review, and monitoring.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop a human-governed clinical informatics framework for safe AI-assisted mental health counseling and make the formative evidence base and requirement-mapping process traceable.

methodsWe conducted a secondary framework development and requirement mapping study using the Korean AI Hub psychological counseling dataset, official data description and use documents, released KLUE-BERT risk prediction model materials, released KoAlpaca summary generation resources, and a deidentified 139-case rule-based summary safety screening audit table derived from the original summary comparison file. Raw counseling transcript text, reference summary full text, and generated summary full text are not included in the manuscript or supplementary materials. We extracted failure modes from documented data and model characteristics, released code and configuration files, documentation-reported model metrics, and rule-based proxy flags. Each failure mode was mapped to safety controls, operational criteria, and deployment-level requirements.

resultsThe official documents described 1661 counseling sessions and 465,474 paragraph-level tokens across depression, anxiety disorder, addiction, and normal control groups. Of the 1661 sessions, the documented split included 1339 (80.6%) training, 173 (10.4%) validation, and 149 (9%) test sessions. The summary generation materials documented 1278 training summaries and 139 test summaries. Documentation-reported model metrics included KLUE-BERT accuracies of 71.43% for depression, 73.53% for anxiety, and 66.67% for addiction and KoAlpaca BERTScore precision, recall, and F

conclusionsAI-assisted mental health counseling should be implemented as a governed clinical information workflow rather than as an autonomous diagnostic or documentation pathway. The proposed framework specifies safeguards and validation requirements for future supervised evaluations, but it does not itself establish clinical safety or clinical effectiveness. Prospective simulation, clinician usability testing, patient or client feedback, and independent expert validation remain necessary before routine deployment.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCounselingMedical InformaticsHumansNatural Language ProcessingRepublic of KoreaAIartificial intelligenceclinical informaticscounselingdata governancedecision supporthuman-governed workflowimplementation sciencemental healthnatural language processingpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID42628031
PMCPMC13545528

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.