Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41155039›Full record

ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Artificial Intelligence-Based Methods and Omics for Mental Illness Diagnosis: A Review.

Glenda Santos de Oliveira, Fábio Henrique Dos Santos Rodrigues, João Guilherme de Moraes Pontes, Ljubica Tasic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Glenda Santos de OliveiraLaboratory of Biological Chemistry, Institute of Chemistry, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, SP, Brazil.
Fábio Henrique Dos Santos RodriguesLaboratory of Biological Chemistry, Institute of Chemistry, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, SP, Brazil.
João Guilherme de Moraes PontesLaboratory of Biological Chemistry, Institute of Chemistry, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9369-7809
Ljubica TasicLaboratory of Biological Chemistry, Institute of Chemistry, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2930-7332

Funding

CNPq #102260/2024-9 and #308079/2021-3FAPESP #2018/06510-4, 2018/24069-3, and #2024/21942-9INCTBio #408338/2024-5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The underlying causes fof major mental illnesses, including anxiety disorders (ADs), depression, and bipolar disorder (BD), remain insufficiently understood, limiting the availability of effective, patient-friendly treatments and accurate diagnostic tests. For instance, anxiety disorders encompass a diverse spectrum of subtypes and may emerge at different stages of mental illness, each with distinct symptom profiles. This heterogeneity often complicates differential diagnosis, leading, in many cases, to delayed treatment or inappropriate management. In recent years, technological advances have enabled the development of artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches that, when integrated with multi-omics data, offer substantial advantages over traditional statistical methods, particularly for analysing large-scale datasets and integrating clinical with bioanalytical information. This review analyses current efforts to identify biomarkers for mental illness and explores the application of machine learning, deep learning, and computational modelling in advancing personalised and precise diagnostics.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebiomarker discoveryexplainabilitylearning architecturesmulti-omicspersonality disorderspsychiatric nosology

Identifiers

PMID41155039
PMCPMC12561711

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.