ReviewCureus2024
Evaluating the Clinical Validity and Reliability of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Diagnostic Tools in Neuropsychiatric Disorders.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modulating the Gut Microbiome as a Therapeutic Approach in Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for Gut-Brain Interactions and Immune Pathways: A Narrative Review.Brain and behavior · 2026Review
- Letter to Editor: Mental health after orchiectomy: Systematic review and strategic management.Arab journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuropsychiatric disorders (NPDs) pose a substantial burden on the healthcare system. The major challenge in diagnosing NPDs is the subjective assessment by the physician which can lead to inaccurate and delayed diagnosis. Recent studies have depicted that the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in neuropsychiatry could potentially revolutionize the field by precisely diagnosing complex neurological and mental health disorders in a timely fashion and providing individualized management strategies. In this narrative review, the authors have examined the current status of AI tools in assessing neuropsychiatric disorders and evaluated their validity and reliability in the existing literature. The analysis of various datasets including MRI scans, EEG, facial expressions, social media posts, texts, and laboratory samples in the accurate diagnosis of neuropsychiatric conditions using machine learning has been profoundly explored in this article. The recent trials and tribulations in various neuropsychiatric disorders encouraging future scope in the utility and application of AI have been discussed. Overall machine learning has proved to be feasible and applicable in the field of neuropsychiatry and it is about time that research translates to clinical settings for favorable patient outcomes. Future trials should focus on presenting higher quality evidence for superior adaptability and establish guidelines for healthcare providers to maintain standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.