SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Application of artificial intelligence and psychosocial functioning in psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a valuable tool in mental health care, with applications in the treatment of psychosis. However, its application to psychosocial functioning in psychosis remains underexplored, despite its critical role towards long-term therapeutic outcomes and recovery. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify, summarize, and evaluate the current evidence on AI applications in psychosocial functioning in psychosis. Methods: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, and ACM Digital Library databases for articles published between January 2010 and March 2025, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Quality of studies was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2.0). Meta-analyses synthesized commonly used performance metrics using random-effects models, with subgroup, sensitivity and publication bias analyses. Results: A total of 14 studies were included in this review. Various AI techniques were employed, with supervised machine learning being the most predominant. Psychosocial domains, including social function, occupational function, social cognition and quality of life, were targeted. Meta-analysis revealed moderate discriminative and predictive accuracies of AI models: pooled AUC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.63-0.76) and RMSE of 8.15 (95% CI: 7.32-8.98). Subgroup analyses indicated higher predictive accuracy for social cognition (AUC=0.77) and clinical symptom-based predictors (RMSE=7.1), with substantial heterogeneity mainly attributed to methodological variability. Conclusions: This review discovered the current application of AI in psychosocial functioning in psychosis, including the techniques usage, modeling approaches, targeted domains, and model performance. AI showed promise for early identification, continuous monitoring, and personalized interventions, driven by methodological advances such as ensemble learning with feature selection. Nevertheless, limitations in methodological consistency, data quality, model design, and ethical issues underscore that the field remains in its early stages. Overall, AI should complement clinical expertise, rather than replace it, in delivering psychosocial care in psychosis. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251051952.
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.