ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2026
Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry: Five Decades of Progress and Persistent Translational Challenges.
Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry: Five Decades of Progress and Persistent Translational Challenges.Psychiatric research and clinical practice · 2026Article
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
Objective: This review examined the historical development of artificial intelligence (AI) in psychiatry from 1972 to 2025 and identified persistent barriers to clinical translation. Method: The review used a structured source-identification approach across PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, citation tracking, and targeted historical searches. It synthesized sources qualitatively and organized them chronologically. A structured evidence table summarized representative milestones by era, AI paradigm, clinical task, data modality, validation approach, implementation status, and translational limitation. Results: Psychiatric AI evolved from symbolic simulation and rule-based expert systems to connectionist models, supervised machine learning, computational psychiatry, digital phenotyping, multimodal monitoring, digital mental health tools, and large language models. Despite increasing computational sophistication, recurring barriers persisted, including uncertain target validity, diagnostic heterogeneity, limited external validation, poor transportability, interpretability challenges, workflow integration, equity, patient trust, and governance. Across eras, technical progress was cyclical rather than linear, with successive waves reproducing unresolved clinical and implementation challenges. Conclusions: The clinical impact of psychiatric AI will likely depend less on algorithmic novelty alone than on clearer clinical targets, prospective validation, implementation trials, patient-centered evaluation, equity-sensitive generalizability, and mental health-specific governance. Relevance to Clinical Practice: For routine psychiatric care, AI tools require evidence of clinical validity, transportability, workflow compatibility, patient acceptability, equity, and appropriate governance rather than technical performance alone.
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.