The role of generative artificial intelligence in psychiatric education– a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growing prevalence of mental health conditions, worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, highlights the urgent need for enhanced psychiatric education. The distinctive nature of psychiatry- which is heavily centred on communication skills, interpersonal skills, and interviewing techniques- indicates a necessity for further research into the use of GenAI in psychiatric education. OBJECTIVE: Given GenAI has shown promising outcomes in medical education, this study aims to discuss the possible roles of GenAI in psychiatric education. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify the role of GenAI in psychiatric education based on the educational framework of the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS). RESULTS: Of the 12,594 papers identified, five studies met the inclusion criteria, revealing key roles for GenAI in case-based learning, simulation, content synthesis, and assessments. Despite these promising applications, limitations such as content accuracy, biases, and concerns regarding security and privacy were highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Despite these promising applications, limitations such as content accuracy, biases, and concerns regarding security and privacy have been highlighted. This study contributes to understanding how GenAI can enhance psychiatric education and suggests future research directions to refine its use in training medical students and primary care physicians. GenAI has significant potential to address the growing demand for mental health professionals, provided its limitations are carefully managed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".