Debate and Dilemmas Regarding Generative AI in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental disorders have ranked among the top 10 prevalent causes of burden on a global scale. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has emerged as a promising and innovative technological advancement that has significant potential in the field of mental health care. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of research dedicated to examining and understanding the application landscape of GAI within this domain. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to inform the current state of GAI knowledge and identify its key uses in the mental health domain by consolidating relevant literature. METHODS: Records were searched within 8 reputable sources including Web of Science, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Google Scholar, CNKI and Wanfang databases between 2013 and 2023. Our focus was on original, empirical research with either English or Chinese publications that use GAI technologies to benefit mental health. For an exhaustive search, we also checked the studies cited by relevant literature. Two reviewers were responsible for the data selection process, and all the extracted data were synthesized and summarized for brief and in-depth analyses depending on the GAI approaches used (traditional retrieval and rule-based techniques vs advanced GAI techniques). RESULTS: In this review of 144 articles, 44 (30.6%) met the inclusion criteria for detailed analysis. Six key uses of advanced GAI emerged: mental disorder detection, counseling support, therapeutic application, clinical training, clinical decision-making support, and goal-driven optimization. Advanced GAI systems have been mainly focused on therapeutic applications (n=19, 43%) and counseling support (n=13, 30%), with clinical training being the least common. Most studies (n=28, 64%) focused broadly on mental health, while specific conditions such as anxiety (n=1, 2%), bipolar disorder (n=2, 5%), eating disorders (n=1, 2%), posttraumatic stress disorder (n=2, 5%), and schizophrenia (n=1, 2%) received limited attention. Despite prevalent use, the efficacy of ChatGPT in the detection of mental disorders remains insufficient. In addition, 100 articles on traditional GAI approaches were found, indicating diverse areas where advanced GAI could enhance mental health care. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the use of GAI in mental health care, which serves as a valuable guide for future research, practical applications, and policy development in this domain. While GAI demonstrates promise in augmenting mental health care services, its inherent limitations emphasize its role as a supplementary tool rather than a replacement for trained mental health providers. A conscientious and ethical integration of GAI techniques is necessary, ensuring a balanced approach that maximizes benefits while mitigating potential challenges in mental health care practices.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".