ArticleJMIR AI2026
Toward a Living Meta-Framework for Evaluating Generative AI in Mental Health.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. 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
Unlabelled: The proliferation of evaluative approaches for generative AI tools used for mental health purposes reflects much-needed attention to safety, ethics, and emerging risks. However, limited alignment across frameworks complicates comparisons, slows progress toward shared goals, and provides little clarity for regulatory processes. The result is a fragmented field that lacks cohesive guidance as the technology and its real-world patterns of use continue to evolve. This position paper synthesizes current evaluative approaches, outlines sources of divergence across existing frameworks, and identifies shared domains that could serve as anchors for coordinated development. We advocate for a living, flexible meta-framework maintained by a global, cross-sector consortium that can harmonize criteria, support consistent evaluation across jurisdictions, and adapt alongside scientific, clinical, and technological advances. Such a structure can strengthen safety, transparency, and methodological consistency while giving researchers, clinicians, developers, and policymakers a shared foundation for assessing generative AI tools in mental health care.
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.