ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Mental health monitoring in the workplace using artificial intelligence: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Workplace mental health issues are a prevalent concern. A potential solution is remote health monitoring. In this scoping review, we map evidence on artificial intelligence (AI) for workplace mental health monitoring. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were searched until March 2024. Studies that evaluated AI for monitoring of a common workplace mental health concern in an actual workplace setting were included. Thirteen studies were included; most (8/13, 62%) were conducted in an office environment, and 4/13 (31%) were in healthcare. Most studies monitored stress (10/13, 77%). The most common method was wearable sensors (8/13, 62%). Studies monitored a wide variety of parameters; the most common were physical activity (7/13, 54%), heart rate or heart rate variability (7/13, 54%). A wide variety of participant-report surveys, including validated (7/13, 54%) and non-validated (6/13, 46%) surveys, were used to measure mental health outcomes. Studies employed diverse AI methods, including supervised, semi-supervised and other (Markov chain and Monte Carlo). The most common AI models used were support vector machines (5/13, 38%), decision trees (5/13, 38%), naive Bayes (4/13, 31%), and random forest (4/13, 38%). Model accuracy ranged from 62%-99%. Future work should identify standard metrics to enable cross-comparability and use larger, high-quality datasets for enriched training, advanced optimization techniques, and careful model tuning.
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.