Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42879671›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2026

Toward a Living Meta-Framework for Evaluating Generative AI in Mental Health.

Ashleigh Sarah Golden, Elias Aboujaoude

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ashleigh Sarah GoldenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, CA94305, United States, 1 (650) 498-9111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0687-9448
Elias AboujaoudeDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, CA94305, United States, 1 (650) 498-9111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1216-8313

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AIethicsevaluationFAITAframeworkframework for AI tool assessmentgenerative AImental healthregulation

Identifiers

PMID42879671
PMCPMC13671489

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.