Acacia Parks, Eoin Travers, Ramesh Perera-Delcourt, Max Major, Marcos Economides, Phil Mullan
{"title":"这个聊天机器人安全吗?对生成式人工智能心理健康聊天机器人进行批判性评估的呼吁。","authors":"Acacia Parks, Eoin Travers, Ramesh Perera-Delcourt, Max Major, Marcos Economides, Phil Mullan","doi":"10.2196/69534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Unlabelled: </strong>The proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI)-based mental health chatbots, such as those on platforms like OpenAI's GPT Store and Character. AI, raises issues of safety, effectiveness, and ethical use; they also raise an opportunity for patients and consumers to ensure AI tools clearly communicate how they meet their needs. While many of these tools claim to offer therapeutic advice, their unregulated status and lack of systematic evaluation create risks for users, particularly vulnerable individuals. This viewpoint article highlights the urgent need for a standardized framework to assess and demonstrate the safety, ethics, and evidence basis of AI chatbots used in mental health contexts. Drawing on clinical expertise, research, co-design experience, and the World Health Organization's guidance, the authors propose key evaluation criteria: adherence to ethical principles, evidence-based responses, conversational skills, safety protocols, and accessibility. Implementation challenges, including setting output criteria without one \"right answer,\" evaluating multiturn conversations, and involving experts for oversight at scale, are explored. The authors advocate for greater consumer engagement in chatbot evaluation to ensure that these tools address users' needs effectively and responsibly, emphasizing the ethical obligation of developers to prioritize safety and a strong base in empirical evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"e69534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140500/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is This Chatbot Safe and Evidence-Based? A Call for the Critical Evaluation of Generative AI Mental Health Chatbots.\",\"authors\":\"Acacia Parks, Eoin Travers, Ramesh Perera-Delcourt, Max Major, Marcos Economides, Phil Mullan\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/69534\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Unlabelled: </strong>The proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI)-based mental health chatbots, such as those on platforms like OpenAI's GPT Store and Character. AI, raises issues of safety, effectiveness, and ethical use; they also raise an opportunity for patients and consumers to ensure AI tools clearly communicate how they meet their needs. While many of these tools claim to offer therapeutic advice, their unregulated status and lack of systematic evaluation create risks for users, particularly vulnerable individuals. This viewpoint article highlights the urgent need for a standardized framework to assess and demonstrate the safety, ethics, and evidence basis of AI chatbots used in mental health contexts. Drawing on clinical expertise, research, co-design experience, and the World Health Organization's guidance, the authors propose key evaluation criteria: adherence to ethical principles, evidence-based responses, conversational skills, safety protocols, and accessibility. Implementation challenges, including setting output criteria without one \\\"right answer,\\\" evaluating multiturn conversations, and involving experts for oversight at scale, are explored. The authors advocate for greater consumer engagement in chatbot evaluation to ensure that these tools address users' needs effectively and responsibly, emphasizing the ethical obligation of developers to prioritize safety and a strong base in empirical evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Participatory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"e69534\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140500/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Participatory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/69534\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/69534","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Is This Chatbot Safe and Evidence-Based? A Call for the Critical Evaluation of Generative AI Mental Health Chatbots.
Unlabelled: The proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI)-based mental health chatbots, such as those on platforms like OpenAI's GPT Store and Character. AI, raises issues of safety, effectiveness, and ethical use; they also raise an opportunity for patients and consumers to ensure AI tools clearly communicate how they meet their needs. While many of these tools claim to offer therapeutic advice, their unregulated status and lack of systematic evaluation create risks for users, particularly vulnerable individuals. This viewpoint article highlights the urgent need for a standardized framework to assess and demonstrate the safety, ethics, and evidence basis of AI chatbots used in mental health contexts. Drawing on clinical expertise, research, co-design experience, and the World Health Organization's guidance, the authors propose key evaluation criteria: adherence to ethical principles, evidence-based responses, conversational skills, safety protocols, and accessibility. Implementation challenges, including setting output criteria without one "right answer," evaluating multiturn conversations, and involving experts for oversight at scale, are explored. The authors advocate for greater consumer engagement in chatbot evaluation to ensure that these tools address users' needs effectively and responsibly, emphasizing the ethical obligation of developers to prioritize safety and a strong base in empirical evidence.