ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Ethical evaluation of AI-supported mental health applications.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychiatric ethics is a uniquely significant domain within the broader field of medical ethics, addressing complex issues such as confidentiality, privacy, informed consent, involuntary admission and treatment, and the intricacies of the physician-patient relationship. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into psychiatric practice, including electronic health records, brain imaging systems, social media platforms, mobile applications, telepsychiatry, the Internet of Things, and therapeutic chatbots, it improves efficiency by aiding in the detection of prodromal phases of illnesses, facilitating patient follow-up, and fostering personalized treatment strategies; however, it also risks deepening existing ethical dilemmas and introducing new ones. It is vital that the algorithms and AI systems underpinning these applications are designed with ethical principles at their core, prioritizing patient benefit and avoiding harm. Methodology: A three-step approach was applied: (1) a narrative/conceptual literature review across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science; (2) ethical and clinical analysis of four widely used AI-supported mental health applications (Wysa, Youper, Amaha, Yuna) across 14 categories; and (3) semi-structured interviews with five practicing psychiatrists, analyzed using grounded theory. Findings were interpreted through a two-part ethical framework: one layer grounded in psychiatric ethics norms, the other in Beauchamp and Childress's four biomedical principles. Results/discussion: Application analysis showed gaps in transparency, accountability, crisis detection, and clinical accuracy. Analysis of the interviews revealed four main themes: Ontological mismatch with psychiatry, clinical role displacement, digital empathy limitations, and emotional responses to AI. These findings were structured into a conceptual framework at the normative, practical, and perceptual levels. Conclusion/perspectives: Despite the growing presence of AI in psychiatric care, there is a significant lack of developed ethical frameworks specifically tailored to AI-supported mental health applications, highlighting the urgent need for a standardized ethical evaluation framework that prioritizes patient well-being and autonomy. Future research should expand clinician samples, include patient and developer perspectives, and undertake longitudinal studies to examine the long-term safety of AI systems in psychiatry.
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.