AI-driven report-generation tools in mental healthcare: A review of commercial tools

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Ayoub Bouguettaya , Victoria Team , Elizabeth M. Stuart , Elias Aboujaoude
{"title":"AI-driven report-generation tools in mental healthcare: A review of commercial tools","authors":"Ayoub Bouguettaya ,&nbsp;Victoria Team ,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Stuart ,&nbsp;Elias Aboujaoude","doi":"10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2025.02.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being integrated in clinical care, including for AI-powered note-writing. We aimed to develop and apply a scale for assessing mental health electronic health records (EHRs) that use large language models (LLMs) for note-writing, focusing on their features, security, and ethics. The assessment involved analyzing product information and directly querying vendors about their systems. On their websites, the majority of vendors provided comprehensive information on data protection, privacy measures, multi-platform availability, patient access features, software update history, and Meaningful Use compliance. Most products clearly indicated the LLM's capabilities in creating customized reports or functioning as a co-pilot. However, critical information was often absent, including details on LLM training methodologies, the specific LLM used, bias correction techniques, and methods for evaluating the evidence base. The lack of transparency regarding LLM specifics and bias mitigation strategies raises concerns about the ethical implementation and reliability of these systems in clinical practice. While LLM-enhanced EHRs show promise in alleviating the documentation burden for mental health professionals, there is a pressing need for greater transparency and standardization in reporting LLM-related information. We propose recommendations for the future development and implementation of these systems to ensure they meet the highest standards of security, ethics, and clinical care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12517,"journal":{"name":"General hospital psychiatry","volume":"94 ","pages":"Pages 150-158"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General hospital psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834325000489","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being integrated in clinical care, including for AI-powered note-writing. We aimed to develop and apply a scale for assessing mental health electronic health records (EHRs) that use large language models (LLMs) for note-writing, focusing on their features, security, and ethics. The assessment involved analyzing product information and directly querying vendors about their systems. On their websites, the majority of vendors provided comprehensive information on data protection, privacy measures, multi-platform availability, patient access features, software update history, and Meaningful Use compliance. Most products clearly indicated the LLM's capabilities in creating customized reports or functioning as a co-pilot. However, critical information was often absent, including details on LLM training methodologies, the specific LLM used, bias correction techniques, and methods for evaluating the evidence base. The lack of transparency regarding LLM specifics and bias mitigation strategies raises concerns about the ethical implementation and reliability of these systems in clinical practice. While LLM-enhanced EHRs show promise in alleviating the documentation burden for mental health professionals, there is a pressing need for greater transparency and standardization in reporting LLM-related information. We propose recommendations for the future development and implementation of these systems to ensure they meet the highest standards of security, ethics, and clinical care.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
General hospital psychiatry
General hospital psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
125
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: General Hospital Psychiatry explores the many linkages among psychiatry, medicine, and primary care. In emphasizing a biopsychosocial approach to illness and health, the journal provides a forum for professionals with clinical, academic, and research interests in psychiatry''s role in the mainstream of medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信