ArticleTranslational psychiatry2026
Application of artificial intelligence in schizophrenia rehabilitation management: a systematic scoping review.
Article in Translational psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the Potential and Challenges of Digital and AI-Driven Psychotherapy for ADHD, OCD, Schizophrenia, and Substance Use Disorders: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2026Review
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in mental health, yet its rehabilitation-oriented applications in schizophrenia have not been systematically mapped. We conducted a systematic scoping review of PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore and the ACM Digital Library (January 1, 2012-October 31, 2025; two search rounds), applying operationalized rehabilitation boundaries and excluding diagnostics-only case-control studies. We extracted data on data sources, feature engineering, model families, validation, calibration, interpretability, application domains, outcomes and implementation readiness. Eighty-three studies met inclusion criteria (median sample size 160; 55% longitudinal). Applications focused on symptom monitoring (48/83), medication management (19/83) and risk management (16/83), whereas functional training (1/83) and psychosocial support (3/83) were rarely targeted. Supervised learning predominated (53/83, 63.9%) over representation learning (20/83, 24%), most commonly using speech/text, electronic health records and smartphone sensing. Across classification tasks, the median AUC was 0.79 (IQR 0.71-0.86); relapse early-warning models showed a median sensitivity of 31.5% at 88.0% specificity. Only four studies reported external validation and three described closed-loop deployment, including one randomized trial that improved adherence. Proxy endpoints were more common than clinical endpoints, and reporting of calibration/uncertainty and fairness auditing was sparse. Overall, AI shows promise for monitoring, adherence support and relapse risk stratification, but routine-care deployment will require externally validated and calibrated human-in-the-loop decision support, privacy-preserving multimodal pipelines and pragmatic trials targeting functional outcomes and participation.
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.