Use of Artificial Intelligence in Adolescents’ Mental Health Care: Systematic Scoping Review of Current Applications and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Given the increasing prevalence of mental health problems among adolescents, early intervention and appropriate management are needed to decrease mortality and morbidity. Artificial intelligence's (AI) potential contributions, although significant in the field of medicine, have not been adequately studied in the context of adolescents' mental health. Objective: This review aimed to identify AI interventions that have been tested, implemented, or both, for use in adolescents' mental health care. Methods: We used the Arksey and O'Malley framework, further refined by Levac et al, along with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, to guide this scoping review. We searched 5 electronic databases from the inception date through July 2024 (inclusive). Four independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts, read the full texts, and extracted data using a validated data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a fifth reviewer was sought. We evaluated the risk of bias (ROB) for prognosis and diagnosis-related studies using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting. Results: Of the papers screened, 88 papers relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. Among the included papers, AI was most commonly used for diagnosis (n=78), followed by monitoring and evaluation (n=19), treatment (n=10), and prognosis (n=6). As some studies addressed multiple applications, categories are not mutually exclusive. For diagnosis, studies primarily addressed suicidal behaviors (n=11) and autism spectrum disorder (n=7). Machine learning was the most frequently reported AI method across all application areas. The overall ROB for diagnostic and prognostic models was predominantly unclear (58%), while 20% of studies had a high ROB and 22% were assessed as low risk. Conclusions: In our review, we found that AI is being applied across various areas of adolescent mental health care, spanning diagnosis, treatment planning, symptom monitoring, and prognosis. Interestingly, most studies to date have concentrated heavily on diagnostic tools, leaving other important aspects of care relatively underexplored. This presents a key opportunity for future research to broaden the scope of AI applications beyond diagnosis. Moreover, future studies should emphasize the meaningful and active involvement of end users in the design, development, and validation of AI interventions, alongside improved transparency in reporting AI models, data handling, and analytical processes to build trust and support safe clinical implementation.
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 | 0.051 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".