ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2027
Artificial Intelligence in suicide prevention: promise, peril, and clinical implications for clinical practice.
Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2027. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into psychiatry is progressing rapidly, with promising yet underexplored applications in suicide prevention. While most existing studies have focused on suicide risk prediction, AI could be applied more broadly across the suicide prevention continuum. This review explores AI's potential in improving the detection of suicidal ideation (SI), enhancing clinician training, and expanding patient access to psychotherapeutic support. Studies suggest that AI models may identify SI more sensitively than clinicians by detecting subtle linguistic or semantic cues. Furthermore, AI-based virtual patients have been shown to improve clinicians' confidence and accuracy in suicide risk assessments, particularly when used alongside traditional training methods. On the patient side, CBT-inspired AI tools offer scalable, on-demand support, but most remain unregulated and clinically unvalidated. Despite their perceived empathy and availability, such tools pose ethical and clinical risks. Many patients use AI tools without professional guidance, a trend clinicians often underestimate. This disconnect calls for urgent regulatory oversight and professional engagement. Without clear clinical validation, AI-based tools may evolve outside medical frameworks, exposing vulnerable individuals to preventable harm. Psychiatry must not only adapt but also lead, ensuring that innovation is harnessed responsibly to serve patients with empathy, safety, and scientific rigor.
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.