How Can Digital Mental Health Enhance Psychiatry?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of digital technologies is constantly growing around the world. The wider-spread adoption of digital technologies and solutions in the daily clinical practice in psychiatry seems to be a question of when, not if. We propose a synthesis of the scientific literature on digital technologies in psychiatry and discuss the main aspects of its possible uses and interests in psychiatry according to three domains of influence that appeared to us: 1) assist and improve current care: digital psychiatry allows for more people to have access to care by simply being more accessible but also by being less stigmatized and more convenient; 2) develop new treatments: digital psychiatry allows for new treatments to be distributed via apps, and practical guidelines can reduce ethical challenges and increase the efficacy of digital tools; and 3) produce scientific and medical knowledge: digital technologies offer larger and more objective data collection, allowing for more detection and prevention of symptoms. Finally, ethical and efficacy issues remain, and some guidelines have been put forth on how to safely use these solutions and prepare for the future.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it