Cited by 62Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AINeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations

Computing schizophrenia: ethical challenges for machine learning in psychiatry

Open access
Starke, Georg, De Clercq, Eva, Borgwardt, Stefan, Elger, Bernice Simone·2021·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Recent advances in machine learning (ML) promise far-reaching improvements across medical care, not least within psychiatry. While to date no psychiatric application of ML constitutes standard clinical practice, it seems crucial to get ahead of these developments and address their ethical challenges early on. Following a short general introduction concerning ML in psychiatry, we do so by focusing on schizophrenia as a paradigmatic case. Based on recent research employing ML to further the diagnosis, treatment, and prediction of schizophrenia, we discuss three hypothetical case studies of ML applications with view to their ethical dimensions. Throughout this discussion, we follow the principlist framework by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress to analyse potential problems in detail. In particular, we structure our analysis around their principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice. We conclude with a call for cautious optimism concerning the implementation of ML in psychiatry if close attention is paid to the particular intricacies of psychiatric disorders and its success evaluated based on tangible clinical benefit for patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291720001683

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Starke, G., De Clercq, E., Borgwardt, S., & Elger, B. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Starke, Georg
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2020-06-15
Volume
51
Issue
15
Pages
2515-2521
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W3034468175
Cited by
62
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Keywords
schizophrenia, AI ethics, principlism, beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, justice, psychiatric diagnosis, treatment prediction, clinical implementation
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Bioethics, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Psychiatry, Schizophrenia

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