The use and influence of AI in psychiatry and mental health care.

PERSPECTIVE OPEN

A cautionary tale for AI and machine learning in psychiatry Zhe Sage Chen 1,2,3✉, Katharina Schultebraucks 1,3,4 and Wei Wu 5

© The Author(s) 2026

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have seen remarkable growth in mental health applications over the past few decades, demonstrating significant potential to transform psychiatric care. Despite these advancements, the translation of AI systems into clinical practice remains fraught with challenges. This Perspective examines critical hurdles in psychiatric AI research, emphasizing limitations in research rigor, model reliability, interpretability, clinical utility, and ethical considerations. We argue that a human-assisted AI framework—incorporating incremental feedback, self-adaptation, and dynamic collaboration—can address biases, enhance transparency, and build trust in AI systems. Moreover, initiatives in clinical education, cultural adaptation, and data/ software sharing are essential to fostering public engagement, data transparency, and research reproducibility. By focusing on these areas, we aim to bridge the gap between AI potential and its successful, ethical implementation in mental health care, guiding the development of trustworthy, effective, and culturally adaptive AI-powered psychiatric tools.

Translational Psychiatry (2026) 16:136 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-026-03930-w

INTRODUCTION The rising cost of mental health and substance abuse places a significant burden on healthcare systems and the global economy. Nearly 20% of adults in the United States live with mental illness, while the increasing demand for psychiatric care continues to overwhelm an already strained mental health system [1]. Recent advancements in AI and ML (Box 1) have demonstrated significant successes in medicine, such as optimizing treatment strategies and predicting readmission outcome [2, 3]. This raises an important question: can AI reliably assist psychiatrists in addres- sing the mental health crisis? The debate over the pros and cons of AI in psychiatric research

persists [4]. While supporters highlight AI’s potential for scalability, accessibility, and generalizability, others remain cautious about its limitations, particularly in precision psychiatry [5–9]. The advent of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, has revolutio- nized human-computer interaction, showcasing physician-level diagnostic capabilities and human-like empathy [3, 10]. However, tangible breakthroughs in mental health care remain limited, prompting valid reservations [11–13]. For instance, a 2019 survey of 800 psychiatrists across 22 countries found that only 4% believed AI could ever replace psychiatrists in complex psychiatric tasks, though many see its potential as an assistive tool [14]. Traditional methods for diagnosing and managing psychiatric

disorders—such as clinical evaluations and questionnaires—are time-consuming and often lack precision [15]. Precision psychiatry, on the other hand, offers a more individualized approach to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment by leveraging clinical symptoms, biological markers, and patient histories. Emerging technologies in neuroimaging, wearable devices, and social media

applications have opened new doors for AI-powered digital phenotyping and a transformative shift in psychiatric care [16]. In this Perspective, we review recent advances in AI and explore

the technical challenges and clinical barriers to integrating AI into mental health practice. Additionally, we offer actionable recom- mendations to maximize the clinical viability of AI and propose a human-assisted AI framework to enhance interpretability, relia- bility, and trust in AI-based clinical decision-making.

A PARTNERSHIP BEWEEN AI AND PSYCHIATRY AND WHERE WE STAND Development of evidence-based, data-intensive AI algorithms that support decision-making in psychiatry has been a long-standing holy grail. Specifically, AI tools are showing real promise in suicide risk prediction, identifying individual at high risk much earlier and more reliably, especially when combining multiple sources of data. For example, an ensemble ML strategy was used to predict suicide attempts in 1818 patients after an emergency department visit. This model used a mix of patient self-report, electronic health record (EHR) data, and clinician assessment, and achieved better accuracy than clinicians alone: an AUC of ~0.77 for one-month prediction and ~0.79 for six-month prediction when all inputs were combined [17]. Another promising direction is using user- generated text (e.g. diary entries or app-based logs) processed by LLMs. A recent study has shown that using diaries and LLMs to detect depression achieved accuracies of ~90% in distinguishing depressed vs non-depressed participants, with high specificity [18]. These examples suggest that combining subjective, beha- vioral, and biological data (text, imaging, EHRs) yields the best

Received: 23 July 2024 Revised: 12 February 2026 Accepted: 2 March 2026

1Department of Psychiatry, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA. 2Department of Neuroscience, Institute of Translational Neuroscience, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA. 3Department of Biomedical Engineering, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA. 4Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA. 5School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China. ✉email: [email protected]

www.nature.com/tpTranslational Psychiatry

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 () ;,:

performance, even though many applications are still early stage and need further validation. On the other hand, the complexity and heterogeneity of mental

illnesses remains a challenge in AI/ML-driven diagnosis for large sample sizes. For example, in terms of diagnosis and treatment of mood disorders like depression, the results are mixed but informative. A large neuroimaging-based study (n= 1801 patients) attempted to define a biomarker signature for major depressive disorder (MDD) using machine learning across many brain imaging modalities. While the classifier did better than chance, its accuracy was only about 62%, which is insufficient for clinical use in isolation [19]. Another recent study has critically evaluated the generalizability of ML models in predicting treatment outcomes in schizophrenia across multiple clinical trials. Surprisingly, the model accuracy significantly declined to a chance level when applied to independent clinical trials, suggest- ing that there is a critical need for validating clinical prediction models across diverse clinical samples [20]. We recognize that current AI-powered psychiatric research still

faces significant technical and practical obstacles that merit critical evaluation. Some challenges are broad and apply across data science applications, such as data and algorithmic biases, low data quality, and imbalanced samples. Others are deeply tied to the methodology (e.g., interpretability issues) or influenced by policy and clinical culture, including concerns around AI ethics and regulation. It is equally important to set realistic goals for AI in psychiatry, along with clear milestones to measure progress. Without aligned expectations, differing views of what constitutes “success” may emerge. Achieving a successful partnership between AI and psychiatry requires a cohesive, well-structured foundation — yet there are countless small ways such efforts can falter. In the paragraphs that follow, we revisit and elaborate on several major critiques to provide a roadmap for addressing these pressing issues.

Critique #1: Biased data can be harmful AI in mental health relies on data, but data are inherently limited and prone to biases, such as gender, racial, and age bias, that can arise during psychiatric practice and data collection [21]. Physicians’ cognitive biases, flawed study designs, and evolving data contribute to these issues. Dynamic bias assessment is

crucial, as AI models must adapt to new data to remain reliable and fair. Without this, biases in data and algorithms may persist or amplify, leading to significant risks like overdiagnosis, over- treatment, or flawed public policy. One source of bias stems from under-reporting and under-

coding, particularly in patients from low socioeconomic back- grounds who lack medical access, leading to data gaps [22]. Self- reported psychiatric data, common in mental health research and AI-dependent apps, also introduces bias due to factors like recall errors and social desirability [23]. Clinicians are advised against using digital biomarkers unless models ensure equitable predic- tions across diverse groups. Additionally, crystallization of bias in data occurs when skewed,

incomplete, or unrepresentative datasets are used to train AI models, causing those biases to become fixed and amplified in predictive outcomes. Sampling and domain biases are not uncommon in psychiatric data. Labeling accuracy further affects data quality. Diagnosing mental

illness, unlike physical conditions, remains challenging due to overlapping symptoms, cultural differences, and heterogeneous presentations [24]. Poorly labeled data can create significant biases, particularly in transdiagnostic frameworks attempting to redefine psychiatric classifications [25]. Without robust data validation, biased results can hinder AI’s reliability inmental health. Unproven AI claims must be approached cautiously to ensure data quality and fairness.

Critique #2: Hurdles in psychiatric biomarker discovery and biological-clinical alignment A key goal of AI in psychiatry is the discovery of biomarkers (Box 1) for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment prediction using multi- modal data (e.g., genetic, neuroimaging, behavioral) [26, 27]. Although AI excels at uncovering complex associations, numerous conceptual and technical challenges hinder progress [28]. While many studies propose potential biomarkers, few are clinically viable due to issues with generalizability and context-dependence, as seen in schizophrenia biomarker research that failed across independent clinical trials20. AI-driven biomarker discovery is often hampered by an overreliance on observational hypotheses and insufficient focus on mechanistic underpinnings. Furthermore, study designs frequently fail to consider validation requirements, such as constructing negative classes to assess sensitivity and specificity. These limitations raise concerns about the robustness of AI models in psychiatric research. From a data perspective, mental disorders often involve multi-

faceted biological and molecular alterations; however, aggregating multimodal datasets and addressingmissing data remain significant hurdles. Current statistical methods often assume missing data are random—a flawed assumption that complicates biomarker valida- tion [29]. Analytical variability further deepens the challenge, as different preprocessing steps produce inconsistent results [30], and confounders like sex, age and socioeconomic status obscure causal relationships (Fig. 1). Existing methods (e.g., matching, stratification) mitigate confounder-induced bias but often reduce statistical power and require post-hoc checks [31, 32]. Principled strategies specifically designed for identifying unconfounded biomarkers are yet to be developed (Box 2) [33–35]. Clinical and biological heterogeneity further complicate bio-

marker development. Biological variations reflect differences in disease mechanisms, while clinical heterogeneity encompasses variations in symptom presentation, treatment response, and diagnostic outcomes [36]. High-dimensional biological data are abundant but often poorly aligned with treatment outcomes due to limited clinical datasets. Unsupervised ML can parse biological heterogeneity, but without clear integration of clinical data, resulting biomarkers lack predictive utility [37–40]. This biological- clinical data misalignment underscores the need for innovative methods to merge rich cross-sectional biological data with labeled longitudinal clinical outcomes, adhering to the established

Box 1. Glossary of key terms

Artificial Intelligence (AI): AI is the overarching field concerned with creating systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as perception, reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. In medicine, AI encompasses a spectrum of approaches—from rule-based expert systems to data-driven predictive models. Machine Learning (ML): ML is a subset of AI that enables systems to learn patterns from data and improve performance (such as prediction and classification) without explicit rule programming. Algorithms such as Logistic Regression, Random Forests, XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting), and Support Vector Machines (SVMs) have been widely applied in psychiatry to predict treatment outcomes, relapse risk, and diagnostic classification based on clinical and neuroimaging data. Deep learning (DL) is a specialized branch of ML that employs multilayered artificial neural networks (ANNs) to extract complex, hierarchical representations from large datasets. It has achieved successes in analyzing high-dimensional neuroimaging, multimedia and behavioral data, though at the cost of interpretability. Large Language Models (LLM): LLMs are advanced DL architectures trained on massive text corpora to understand, summarize, and generate human-like language. In psychiatry, LLMs hold promise for clinical documentation, natural language analysis of patient narratives, and decision support. However, their integration requires careful attention to issues of bias, transparency, and clinical validation. Biomarker is an objectively measurable indicator of a biological process, pathogenic state, or therapeutic response. It does not need to be a biological molecule itself, but rather any quantifiable feature—such as a neural signal, genetic variant, or behavioral metric—that reliably reflects an underlying biological condition. Major categories of biomarkers, as defined by FDA and NIH’s Biomarkers Definitions Working Group, include diagnostic biomarkers, prognostic biomarkers, predictive biomarkers, monitoring biomarkers, response biomarkers, and safety biomarkers.

Z.S. Chen et al.

2

Translational Psychiatry (2026) 16:136

frameworks like NIMH’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), WHO’s ICD-11, and American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR. Overall, generalizable biomarkers require new strategies that address study design flaws, confounders, multimodal data integration, and the alignment of biological and clinical heterogeneity. The development of principled AI methods remains crucial to overcoming these barriers in psychiatric research.

Critique #3: The Achilles heel of AI in psychiatry—limited interpretability and explainability AI in psychiatry faces a major challenge: the “black-box” nature of its algorithms can obscure the reasoning behind predictions, complicating their clinical, legal, and social acceptability [41]. Understanding why an AI model predicts mental illness is crucial for fostering trust among psychiatrists, patients, and other stakeholders [42]. Transparent or “glass-box” models are urgently needed, as explainable AI (XAI) can help psychiatrists reconcile their intuition with AI-generated insights, enabling more trust- worthy decision-making [43, 44]. However, balancing complexity and interpretability remains difficult; simple models (e.g., decision trees) offer better transparency, but complex structures (e.g., deep neural networks) often outperform them in predictive accuracy. Explainability is also essential for patient engagement. Trust in

treatment plans can diminish if patients are unable to understand AI-driven decisions. Tools, interfaces, and visualizations should make AI predictions accessible, tailoring explanations to indivi- duals’ comprehension levels [45]. Despite growing interest in XAI, recent research suggests that interaction with AI recommenda- tions does not consistently improve clinicians’ treatment accuracy —and incorrect recommendations may even mislead them [46]. Achieving deeper explainability requires addressing causality,

not just correlation [47]. AI tools currently fall short of accounting for life events, behavioral feedback, and neural changes that influence mental health. A closed-loop framework combining neurostimulation with XAI could help uncover brain-behavior causation and drive precision treatments [16]. Until then, AI systems in psychiatry lack the transparency necessary for broad adoption and reliable use.

Critique #4: Poor regulation of AI in mental health AI-driven mental health tools, including digital phenotyping and chatbots, face significant regulatory gaps [48]. Social media

Fig. 1 Development of causal inference tools for precision psychiatry. a Illustration of confounding and collider biases in predictive diagnosis in psychiatry. Confounding occurs when a common cause exists for both exposure and outcome, where a collider is a common effect of both exposure and outcome. Excluding a confounder or including a collider in a predictive model can lead to biased associations. b The confounders are traditionally controlled for by eliminating their influences on either the features or the target variable. However, these strategies do not integrate confounders into the modeling procedure. To address this limitation, an improved strategy is to decorrelate the biomarker and target at the biomarker optimization stage. For instance, additional constraints can be imposed on the biomarker such that it is correlated with the confounders. This strategy can be readily applied to the existing machine learning algorithms.

Box 2. Causal inference in precision psychiatry

Causal inference can be used to account for confounders in biomarker discovery. As a simple illustration of the confounder effect in predictive modeling, we may adapt a standard linear predictive modeling framework to infer unconfounded biomarkers. By imposing additional constraints on the biomarkers such that they are uncorrelated with the confounders, the predictive framework can be formulated as a convex optimization problem:

min w

kXw � yk22 þ λkwk2;

where X represents the data matrix with rows corresponding to samples and columns corresponding to input features, y represents the target vector containing the outcomes across samples, w is the unknown regression weight vector, and λ is the regularization parameter. As an extension, an unconfounded version of ridge regression can be cast as a constrained optimization problem:

min w

kXw � yk22 þ λkwk2; s:t:ZXw ¼ 0;

where Z contains confounding variables as rows. Note that the equality constraint is linear with respect to the unknown parameter w, the solution remains convex, and the solution is guaranteed to be uncorrelated with the confounders. Additionally, the identified biomarkers are linear combinations of the input features. Human randomized controlled experiments can either rarely be conducted in

human etiological research, or are limited in examining one or a handful of causes at a time, posing a challenge of causal inference in psychiatric research. A wide range of computational causal discovery approaches have been developed to identify direct or indirect causal factors for clinical or neuropsychiatric outcomes, while accounting for unmeasured confounders [66–68].

Z.S. Chen et al.

3

Translational Psychiatry (2026) 16:136

platforms and mental health apps often self-regulate, leaving users, especially underage ones, vulnerable. This lack of oversight raises accountability concerns: Who is responsible when AI fails in mental health care? Insufficient regulation regarding ethics, fairness, data security, and explainability exacerbates the risks, favoring short-term benefits for industry players over long-term societal safety. Frameworks like the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the proposed European AI Act aim to tackle these issues, emphasizing transparency to build trust in AI tools [49]. Mental health chatbots, such as Woebot or ChatGPT, exemplify

both the promise and pitfalls of AI in psychiatry. They offer scalability and 24/7 support, but their efficacy and safety remain under scrutiny [50]. Small-scale studies have faced criticism for overstating benefits and overlooking limitations like insufficient therapeutic relationships, data privacy risks, and questionable long-term trust. While such AI tools may augment care, they cannot yet replace psychiatrists, whose in-person connections remain the gold standard for psychiatric assessment. Until robust regulations and evidence emerge, applying AI to high-stakes mental health scenarios remains risky.

DISCUSSION AND OUTLOOK Overall, the challenges of embedded bias, catastrophic inter- ference, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities remain inherent in current AI systems. Furthermore, ethical concerns around patient privacy and data security cannot be ignored. Premature, wide- spread deployment of AI in mental health care could pose significant risks, especially without proper education for clinicians on interpreting AI results that diverge from established clinical decisions. To mitigate these pitfalls and enhance the safe integration of AI into psychiatry, we discuss several practical guidelines to enhance AI’s clinical viability (Fig. 2).

Identifying the right problem and enhancing interoperability Psychiatric disorders are highly complex and heterogeneous, not only in the manifestation but also in the etiology. Because the constructs are difficult to define, diagnose, and predict, this would require interdisciplinary collaboration to define clinically relevant

problems for AI to target as well as to choose data collection in clinical practice. Clinicians, AI researchers, and end-users (provi- ders and patients) must work together to identify meaningful predictors, outcomes, and data collection strategies aligned with clinical needs [51]. Selecting appropriate proxies and predictors, rooted in theoretical and practical relevance, is key. For AI tools to be practical, they must fit within existing

technological infrastructures. Factors integrated into the AI pipeline, such as fMRI or genetic data, must balance relevance and accessibility, as expensive or inaccessible methods are impractical for routine care. Wearable devices may streamline collection but risk limiting actionable outcomes compared to broadly accessible technologies. New AI approaches should leverage routinely collected data that clinicians can easily use at the point of care [52, 53]. To enhance interoperability, AI-assisted tools must be developed and validated on diverse, real-world samples under routine care conditions. Their efficacy and cost- effectiveness should be benchmarked against standard care practices to ensure meaningful clinical utility.

Maximizing clinical viability and minimizing translational gap While AI shows promise in psychiatry, improved prediction accuracy does not always translate into better clinical outcomes [54]. To enhance clinical utility, AI innovations must address clinical relevance, financial feasibility, and clinician acceptance [55]. Low-cost, scalable digital phenotypes are rapidly emerging but require validation to confirm whether they complement or improve upon traditional metrics. Demonstrating their clinical impact demands establishing robust associations between these digital phenotypes and established neuropsychological, neuro- biological, behavioral, and psychometric measures. Rigorous evaluations, including randomized controlled trials and long- term studies, are essential for assessing their real-world effectiveness. AI tools must integrate seamlessly into existing healthcare

infrastructure to minimize financial and operational barriers. For example, incompatibility with EHR systems could significantly increase adoption and maintenance costs. Trustworthy AI systems are key to clinician acceptance [56], necessitating a re-examination of every step in the data pipeline—from initial design to cleaning,

Fig. 2 Schematic flowchart of developing practical and trustworthy AI tools for psychiatry. Step 1: Identify the right clinical problem and state clearly the goal and expectation of AI solutions. Step 2: Develop explainable AI or interpretable ML approaches. Step 3: Develop human- in-the-loop AI system by incorporating feedback from clinicians and end-users. Step 4: Maximize interoperability and clinical viability. (Created in and licensed by BioRender. https://BioRender.com/oy2zcmf).

Z.S. Chen et al.

4

Translational Psychiatry (2026) 16:136

annotation, and evaluation. Data-centric AI approaches will play a critical role in this process [57]. Furthermore, involving clinicians and patients in the co-design of AI tools can improve trust, aligning these systems with practical clinical needs and ensuring their relevance in real-world settings.

Integration of AI into clinical workflow Integrating AI into clinical workflows requires more than just technical readiness—it demands organizational, educational, and cultural adaptation. The first step is to identify where AI can add tangible value without disrupting the clinician’s workflow—such as automating repetitive documentation, assisting with image analysis, or triaging cases based on risk. Successful implementa- tion depends on co-designing tools with clinicians, ensuring that AI outputs are interpretable, transparent, and seamlessly inte- grated into existing electronic health record systems. Hospitals should establish AI governance committees to oversee data quality, regulatory compliance, and model validation in real-world settings. Pilot programs and iterative testing help fine-tune the system before broad deployment, allowing for feedback loops that improve both accuracy and usability Equally critical is training the clinical workforce to understand

and trust AI-assisted decisions. Educational modules—ranging from continuing medical education (CME) courses to simulation- based training—can help clinicians interpret AI outputs, recognize limitations, and integrate them into patient care. Building patient trust also requires clear communication: clinicians should explain how AI contributes to diagnosis or treatment while emphasizing that human oversight remains central. Public engagement, transparency about data use, and demonstration of improved outcomes will be key to patient acceptance.

Human-assisted AI (HAAI) for psychiatry AI models are prone to errors over time due to shifts in data distribution, user behavior, and clinical practices, which degrade their generalizability. To maximize the clinical relevance of AI in psychiatry, human-in-the-loop systems, a paradigm of augmented intelligence, offer a promising solution. These systems integrate continuous human feedback to address biases and inconsisten- cies, improving AI performance iteratively. The idea of developing human-in-the-loop AI systems is not

new in high-stakes decision-making processes [58] and has been advocated in mental health research [8, 59]. Clinicians can enhance AI models by providing incremental feedback, contribut- ing prior knowledge, and introducing relevant data to refine decision-making and bolster system trust. Human intervention also enables top-down knowledge discovery and interactive learning [60] to improve the interpretability of AI outputs. This collaborative clinic-to-research feedback loop and human- AI interactions accelerate model adaptation and mitigate data biases. In tandem with these efforts, merging data-driven AI

approaches (uncovering patterns in psychiatric data) with theory-driven systems (modeling mental disorders as computa- tional anomalies) can further advance psychiatric research [61, 62]. Integration of these two approaches will likely produce a fruitful outcome. Ultimately, fostering a collaborative environment where human expertise and AI capabilities complement each other will be essential for enhancing the effectiveness, reliability, and impact of mental health care.

Data and software sharing initiatives The exponential rise in AI research in psychiatry has led to numerous studies applying off-the-shelf algorithms to small datasets. However, these efforts often lack rigor and transparency, misleading readers and fostering skepticism among mental health professionals. To address this, researchers must prioritize trans- parent reporting, including clear discussions of AI limitations.

Advancements in generative AI and LLMs offer transformative potential. For instance, “NYUTron,” trained on over 7 million clinical notes, showcases how fine-tuned models can predict health outcomes like hospital readmission. By continuously adjusting training data to mitigate biases, such systems could significantly impact mental health care [3]. For psychiatry to achieve the same breakthroughs as AI in

computer vision and natural language processing, data and software sharing must become the norm. Open-access datasets, standardized benchmarks, and reproducible systems have been pivotal in other fields and should be widely adopted in psychiatry. Public repositories for de-identified psychiatric data—combined with government-supported frameworks for quality control, standardization, and regulation—are essential to drive innovation. Oncology biomarker research serves as a blueprint for coordinat- ing multi-stakeholder efforts [63]. Additionally, community-driven competitions could incentivize

the development of tools to detect AI biases in mental health, fostering the creation of robust “by-the-AI, for-the-AI” solutions. To ensure clinical relevance, validation criteria must be standardized, with benchmarks established using large, diverse datasets that account for factors like age, sex, ethnicity, and treatment history. Generalist medical AI (GMAI) applications could be leveraged to regulate and validate AI tools, ultimately advancing mental health care [64]. This strategic alignment of data sharing, benchmark creation, and interdisciplinary collaboration will be crucial for unlocking AI’s full potential in psychiatry.

Recommendations To close this discussion, we enclose several recommendations that directly address the individual critiques. First, mitigating bias in AI-driven mental health research requires

systematic bias auditing, diverse data representation, and transpar- ent reporting. Datasets should encompass demographically and clinically heterogeneous populations, with rigorous validation to minimize underrepresentation and labeling errors. Embedding continuous bias monitoring into model training and deployment pipelines will enable adaptive correction over time. Close collabora- tion between clinicians and data scientists is crucial to align algorithmic outputs with clinical validity and ethical standards, thereby enhancing model fairness, generalizability, and reliability. Second, advancing AI-based biomarker discovery demands

methodological rigor and stronger alignment between biological and clinical data. Future studies should integrate multimodal datasets through standardized preprocessing pipelines, explicit handling of confounders, and prospective, hypothesis-driven designs. Moreover, linking biological signatures to longitudinal clinical outcomes through frameworks like the RDoC can enhance translational validity. Collaborative consortia and open data initiatives will be vital to achieve robust, reproducible, and clinically actionable biomarkers. Third, improving interpretability in psychiatric AI necessitates

the development of explainable and causally informed models. Integrating XAI frameworks that balance accuracy with transpar- ency can help clinicians and patients understand and trust model predictions. Hybrid approaches combining mechanistic modeling, causal inference, and human-in-the-loop design offer a path toward interpretable yet high-performing systems, thereby strengthening both clinical decision-making and accountability. Fourth, ensuring the safe and ethical deployment of AI in

mental health requires stronger regulatory oversight. Future policies should enforce transparency, data protection, and accountability standards while differentiating between low- and high-risk applications. Multistakeholder collaboration among clinicians, ethicists, regulators, and technologists will be essential to establish evidence-based guidelines and certification pathways that promote responsible innovation and public trust in psychiatric AI.

Z.S. Chen et al.

5

Translational Psychiatry (2026) 16:136

CONCLUSION In conclusion, the journey to create trustworthy AI systems for mental health is filled with both promise and significant challenges. Like any successful partnership, the marriage between AI and psychiatry demands clear communication, mutual trust, patience, and persistent effort from all stakeholders. We stand at a crossroads where opportunities and obstacles coexist, but consensus across the involved parties remains elusive [65]. Our hope is that this commentary not only sparks critical dialogue but also inspires collaboration between AI researchers and AI-savvy clinicians. By addressing these issues with focused intent, we can restructure research strategies to deliver clinically meaningful outcomes. If this effort motivates a paradigm shift toward actionable and reliable solutions in mental health, we will have achieved our goal. The future of AI in psychiatry lies not just in possibilities, but in our collective commitment to making it a reality.

REFERENCES 1. American Psychological Association (APA) survey. Psychologists struggle to meet

demand amid mental health crisis (2022). https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/ practitioner/2022-covid-psychologist-workload.pdf.

2. Komorowski M, Celi LA, Badawi O, Gordon AC, Faisal AA. The artificial intelligence clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat Med. 2018;24:1716–20.

3. Jiang LY, Liu XC, Nejatian NP, Nasir-Moin M, Wang D, Abidin A, et al. Health system-scale language models are all-purpose prediction engines. Nature. 2023;619:357–62.

4. Brown C, Story G, Mourão-Miranda J, Baker J. Will artificial intelligence eventually replace psychiatrists?. Br J Psychiatry. 2021;218:131–4.

5. Bzdok D, Meyer-Lindenberg A. Machine learning for precision psychiatry: opportunities and challenges. Biol Psychiatr Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2018;3:223–30.

6. Shatte ABR, Hutchinson DM, Teague SJ. Machine learning in mental health: a scoping review of methods and applications. Psychol Med. 2019;49:1426–48.

7. Cearns M, Hahn T, Baune BT. Recommendations and future directions for supervised machine learning in psychiatry. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9:271.

8. Koutsouleris N, Hauser TU, Skvortsova V, De Choudhury M. From promise to practice: towards the realization of AI-informed mental health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2022;4:e829–40.

9. Thieme A, Belgrave D, Doherty G. Machine learning in mental health: a systematic review of the HCI literature to support the development of effective and implementable ML systems. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact. 2020;27:1–53.

10. Tu T, Schaekermann M, Palepu A, Saab K, Freyberg J, Tanno R, et al. Towards conversational diagnostic artificial intelligence. Nature. 2025;642:442–50.

11. Wilkinson J, Arnold KF, Murray EJ, van Smeden M, Carr K, Sippy R, et al. Time to reality check the promises of machine learning-powered precision medicine. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2:e677–80.

12. Vollmer S, Mateen BA, Bohner G, Király FJ, Ghani R, Jonsson P, et al. Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness. BMJ. 2020;368:l6927.

13. Fischer L, Mann PA, Nguyen MHH, Becker S, Khodadadi S, Schulz A, et al. AI for mental health: clinician expectations and priorities in computational psychiatry. BMC Psychiatry. 2025;25:584.

14. Doraiswamy PM, Blease C, Bodner K. Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: insights from a global physician survey. Artif Intell Med. 2020;102:101753.

15. Fakhoury M. Artificial intelligence in psychiatry. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1192:119–25.

16. Chen ZS, Kulkarni P, Galatzer-Levy IR, Bigio B, Nasca C, Zhang Y. Modern views of machine learning for precision psychiatry. Patterns. 2022;3:100602.

17. Nock MK, Millner AJ, Ross EL, Kennedy CJ, Al-Suwaidi M, Barak-Corren Y, et al. Prediction of suicide attempts using clinician assessment, patient self-report, and electronic health records. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2144373.

18. Shin D, Kim H, Lee S, Cho Y, Jung W. Using large language models to detect depression from user-generated diary text data as a novel approach in digital mental health screening: instrument validation study. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e54617.

19. Winter NR, Blanke J, Leenings R, Ernsting J, Fisch L, Sarink K, et al. A systematic evaluation of machine learning–based biomarkers for major depressive disorder. JAMA Psychiatry. 2024;81:386–95.

20. Chekroud AM, Hawrilenko M, Loho H, Bondar J, Gueorguieva R, Hasan A, et al. Illusory generalizability of clinical prediction models. Science. 2024;383:164–7.

21. Walsh CG, Chaudhry B, Dua P, Goodman KW, Kaplan B, Kavuluru R, et al. Stigma, biomarkers, and algorithmic bias: recommendations for precision behavioral health with artificial intelligence. JAMIA Open. 2020;3:9–15.

22. Rost K, Smith R, Matthews DB, Guise B. The deliberate misdiagnosis of major depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med. 1994;3:333–7.

23. Quagan B, Woods SW, Powers AR. Navigating the benefits and pitfalls of online psychiatric data collection. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78:1185–6.

24. Li D, Liu W, Han H. Mislabeled learning for psychiatric disorder detection. MedRxiv [Preprint]. 2022 https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.11.22278675.

25. Rokham H, Pearlson G, Abrol A, Falakshahi H, Plis S, Calhoun VD. Addressing inac- curate nosology in mental health: A multilabel data cleansing approach for detecting label noise from structural magnetic resonance Imaging data in mood and psychosis disorders. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2020;5:819–32.

26. García-Gutiérrez MS, Navarrete F, Sala F, Gasparyan A, Austrich-Olivares A, Man- zanares J. Biomarkers in psychiatry: concept, definition, types and relevance to the clinical reality. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:432.

27. Kirkpatrick RH, Munoz DP, Khalid-Khan S, Booij L. Methodological and clinical challenges associated with biomarkers for psychiatric disease: A scoping review. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;143:572–9.

28. Diaz-Uriarte R, Gómez de Lope E, Giugno R, Fröhlich H, Nazarov PV, Nepomuceno- Chamorro IA, et al. Ten quick tips for biomarker discovery and validation analyses using machine learning. PLoS Comput Biol. 2022;18:e1010357.

29. Mavridis D, Chaimani A, Efthimiou O, Leucht S, Salanti G. Addressing missing outcome data in meta-analysis. Statistics in Practice. 2014;17:85–9.

30. Botvinik-Nezer R, Holzmeister F, Camerer CF, Dreber A, Huber J, Johannesson M, et al. Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams. Nature. 2020;582:84–8.

31. Rao A, Monteiro JM, Mourao-Miranda J. Predictive modelling using neuroimaging data in the presence of confounds. Neuroimage. 2017;150:23–49.

32. Zhao Q, Adeli E, Pohl KM. Training confounder-free deep learning models for medical applications. Nat Commun. 2020;11:6010.

33. Reay WR, Kiltschewskij DJ, Geaghan MP, Atkins JR, Carr VJ, Green MJ, et al. Genetic estimates of correlation and causality between blood-based biomarkers and psychiatric disorders. Sci Adv. 2022;8:eabj8969.

34. Saxe GN, Ma S, Morales LJ, Galatzer-Levy IR, Aliferis C, Marmar CR. Computational causal discovery for post-traumatic stress in police officers. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10:233.

35. Saxe GN, Bickman L, Ma S, Aliferis C. Mental health progress requires causal diag- nostic nosology and scalable causal discovery. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:898789.

36. Feczko E, Miranda-Dominguez O, Marr M, Graham AM, Nigg JT, Fair DA. The heterogeneity problem: approaches to identify psychiatric subtypes. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019;23:584–601.

37. Beijers L, Wardenaar KJ, van Loo HM, Schoevers RA. Data-driven biological sub- types of depression: systematic review of biological approaches to depression subtyping. Mol Psychiatry. 2019;24:888–900.

38. Drysdale AT, Grosenick L, Downar J, Dunlop K, Mansouri F, Meng Y, et al. Resting- state connectivity biomarkers define neurophysiological subtypes of depression. Nat Med. 2017;23:28–38.

39. Zhang Y, Wu W, Toll RT, Naparstek S, Maron-Katz A, Watts M, et al. Identification of psychiatric disorder subtypes from functional connectivity patterns in resting- state electroencephalography. Nat Biomed Eng. 2021;5:309–23.

40. Pelin H, Ising M, Stein F, Meinert S, Meller T, Brosch K, et al. Identification of transdiagnostic psychiatric disorder subtypes using unsupervised learning. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2021;46:1895–905.

41. Joyce DW, Kormilitzin A, Smith KA, Cipriani A. Explainable artificial intelligence for mental health through transparency and interpretability for understandability. npj Digit Med. 2023;6:6.

42. Hedderich DM, Eickhoff SB. Machine learning for psychiatry: getting doctors at the black box?. Mol Psychiatry. 2021;26:23–25.

43. Ploug T, Holm S. The four dimensions of contestable AI diagnostics-A patient- centric approach to explainable AI. Artif Intell Med. 2020;107:101901.

44. Roessner V, Rothe J, Kohls G, Schomerus G, Ehrlich S, Beste C. Taming the chaos?! Using eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to tackle the complexity in mental health research. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;30:1143–6.

45. Banerjee S, Lio P, Jones PB, Cardinal RN. A class-contrastive human-interpretable machine learning approach to predict mortality in severe mental illness. NPJ Schizophr. 2021;7:60.

46. Jacobs M, Pradier MF, McCoy TH Jr., Perlis RH, Doshi-Velez F, Gajos KZ. How machine-learning recommendations influence clinician treatment selections: the example of antidepressant selection. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11:108.

47. Etkin A. Addressing the causality gap in human psychiatric neuroscience. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75:3–4.

48. Mendes JPM, Moura IR, Van de Ven P, Viana D, Silva FJS, Coutinho LR, et al. Sensing apps and public data sets for digital phenotyping of mental health: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24:e28735.

Z.S. Chen et al.

6

Translational Psychiatry (2026) 16:136

49. Candelon, F, di Carlo, RC, De Bondt, M, Evgeniou, T. AI regulation is coming. Harvard Business Review, September 2021 https://hbr.org/2021/09/ai-regulation- is-coming.

50. Abd-Alrazaq AA, Rababeh A, Alajlani M, Bewick BM, Househ M. Effectiveness and safety of using chatbots to improve mental health: systematic review and meta- analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e16021.

51. Wiens J, Saria S, Sendak M, Ghassemi M, Liu VX, Doshi-Velez F, et al. Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care. Nat Med. 2019;25:1337–40.

52. Abbas A, Schultebraucks K, Galatzer-Levy IR. Digital measurement of mental health: challenges, promises, and future directions. Psychiatr Ann. 2021;51:14–20.

53. Schultebraucks K, Shalev AY, Michopoulos V, Grudzen CR, Shin S-M, Stevens JS, et al. A validated predictive algorithm of post-traumatic stress course following emer- gency department admission after a traumatic stressor. Nat Med. 2020;26:1084–8.

54. Maslej MM, Kloiber S, Ghassemi M, Yu J, Hill SL. Out with AI, in with the psy- chiatrist: a preference for human derived clinical decision support in depression care. Transl Psychiatry. 2023;13:210.

55. Yildirim N, Zimmerman J, Preum S. Technical feasibility, financial viability, and clinician acceptance: on the many challenges to AI in clinical practice. Proc. AAAI 2021 Fall Symposium on Human Partnership with Medical AI: Design, Oper- ationalization, and Ethics (AAAI-HUMAN 2021), November 4-6 (2021).

56. Cutillo CM, Sharma KR, Foschini L, Kundu S, Mackintosh M, Mandl KD, et al. Machine intelligence in healthcare—perspectives on trustworthiness, explain- ability, usability, and transparency. npj Digit Med. 2020;3:47.

57. Liang W, Tadesse GA, Ho D, Fei-Fei L, Zaharia M, Zhang C, et al. Advances, challenges and opportunities in creating data for trustworthy AI. Nat Mach Intell. 2022;4:669–77.

58. Mosqueira-Rey E, Hernández-Pereira E, Alonso-Ríos D, Bobes-Bascaran J, Fernandez-Leal A. Human-in-the-loop machine learning: a state of the art. Artif Intell Rev. 2022;56:3005–54.

59. Chandler C, Foltz PW, Elvevåg B. Improving the applicability of AI for psychiatric applications through human-in-the-loop methodologies. Schizophr Bull. 2022;48:949–57.

60. Teso S, Kersting K. Explanatory interactive machine learning. Proc. 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES’19), pp. 239-45 (2019).

61. Adams RA, Huys QJM, Roiser JP. Computational psychiatry: towards a mathe- matically informed understanding of mental illness. J Neurol Neurosurg Psy- chiatry. 2016;87:53–63.

62. Redish AD, Gordon JA Computational Psychiatry: New Perspectives on Mental Illness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; 2016.

63. Poste G. Bring on the biomarkers. Nature. 2011;469:156–7. 64. Moor M, Banerjee O, Abad ZSH, Krumholz HM, Leskovec J, Topol EJ, et al.

Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence. Nature. 2023;616:259–65.

65. Itani S, Rossignol M. At the crossroads between psychiatry and machine learning: insights into paradigms and challenges for clinical applicability. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:552262.

66. Pearl J Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY; 2009.

67. Ma S, Statnikov A. Methods for computational causal discovery in biomedicine. Behaviormetrika. 2017;44:165–91.

68. Prosperi M, Guo Y, Sperrin M, Koopman JS, Min JS, He X, et al. Causal inference and counterfactual prediction in machine learning for actionable healthcare. Nat Mach Intell. 2020;2:369–75.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Quentin Huys and Yu Zhang for valuable feedback on the manuscript. The article also benefited from discussions among the participants of a workshop “Psychiatry Meets Machine Learning: What Will the Marriage Yield?” held in the 31st European Congress on Psychiatry (March 2023). The authors acknowledge funding from the US National Institutes of Health grants MH132642 (Z.S.C.), MH139352 (Z.S.C), NS121776 (Z.S.C.), NS123928 (Z.S.C.), NS135170 (Z.S.C.), DA056394 (Z.S.C.), HL156134 (K.S.), MH129856 (K.S.), HL157341 (K.S.), and Swiss National Science Foundation (K.S.), STI2030-Major Projects under Grant 2022ZD0211700 (W.W.), National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant U24A20338 (W.W.), and AI Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission under Grant JWAIZD-4 (W.W.). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS ZSC conceptualized the idea and drafted the paper; KS and WW contributed to editing and revision of the article. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

COMPETING INTERESTS Z.S. Chen is a scientific advisor of Pallas Technologies Inc. The other two authors declare no competing interests.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Zhe Sage Chen.

Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/ reprints

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,

adaptation, distribution and reproduction in anymedium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2026

Z.S. Chen et al.

7

Translational Psychiatry (2026) 16:136