ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Artificial intelligence as decision support for adolescent depression and anxiety: a mini review of clinical utility, safety, and implementation.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adolescent depression and anxiety are common, heterogeneous, and often recognized late. Young people may present with sleep disturbance, irritability, somatic complaints, school refusal, social withdrawal, attentional difficulties, or functional decline before they meet clear diagnostic thresholds. Artificial intelligence has been proposed as a way to improve early identification, monitoring, triage, and treatment planning. However, predictive accuracy alone does not establish clinical value. This Mini Review examines what artificial intelligence can realistically add to the care of adolescents with depression and anxiety, with emphasis on decision support rather than automated diagnosis. Current evidence suggests potential value in prospective risk prediction, digital phenotyping, measurement-based monitoring, conversational interfaces, and early detection of poor treatment response. These tools may help clinicians identify young people who need closer follow-up, structured assessment, safety planning, or treatment adjustment. However, the evidence remains limited by retrospective designs, selected samples, inconsistent outcome definitions, weak external validation, limited calibration, uncertain incremental value over standard clinical assessment, and insufficient testing in real workflows. Digital and conversational tools also raise concerns about privacy, consent, safeguarding, equity, and over-monitoring. Clinically useful artificial intelligence should therefore be evaluated by whether it improves concrete decisions: who is assessed earlier, monitored more closely, escalated for safety concerns, or offered a different treatment pathway. Future research should prioritize measurement precision, cultural transportability, realistic comparators, and evidence that model-guided care improves outcomes for young people.
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.