The Current Research Landscape on the Artificial Intelligence Application in the Management of Depressive Disorders: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI)-based techniques have been widely applied in depression research and treatment. Nonetheless, there is currently no systematic review or bibliometric analysis in the medical literature about the applications of AI in depression. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the current research landscape, which objectively evaluates the productivity of global researchers or institutions in this field, along with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and latent dirichlet allocation (LDA). From 2010 onwards, the total number of papers and citations on using AI to manage depressive disorder have risen considerably. In terms of global AI research network, researchers from the United States were the major contributors to this field. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the most well-studied application of AI was the utilization of machine learning to identify clinical characteristics in depression, which accounted for more than 60% of all publications. Latent dirichlet allocation identified specific research themes, which include diagnosis accuracy, structural imaging techniques, gene testing, drug development, pattern recognition, and electroencephalography (EEG)-based diagnosis. Although the rapid development and widespread use of AI provide various benefits for both health providers and patients, interventions to enhance privacy and confidentiality issues are still limited and require further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".