Is big data the new stethoscope? Perils of digital phenotyping to address mental illness
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The lack of transparency regarding the actual nature of services provided by chatbots is probably most visible in the Efficacy Overflow Argument, often implicitly conveyed in the marketing of mental health chatbots.
“The lack of transparency regarding the actual nature of services provided by chatbots is probably most visible in what we may call “The Efficacy Overflow Argument,” often implicitly conveyed in the marketing of mental health chatbots (29).”
From Waiting for a digital therapist: three challenges on the path to psychotherapy delivered by artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as [29]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Tekin, Ş.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tekin, Şerife
- ORCID
- Tekin, Şerife
- Venue
- Philosophy & Technology
- Published
- 2020-03-02
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 447-461
- ISSN
- 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
- 2210-5441
- OpenAlex
- W3009502649
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 3.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- digital phenotyping, mental illness diagnosis, psychotherapy, artificial intelligence in healthcare, big data, limits of knowledge, mental health stigma, access to mental health care, early detection and intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
