Cited by 264Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

A Call to Action on Assessing and Mitigating Bias in Artificial Intelligence Applications for Mental Health

Open access
Timmons, Adela C., Duong, Jacqueline B., Simo Fiallo, Natalia, Lee, Theodore, Vo, Huong Phuc Quynh, Ahle, Matthew W., Comer, Jonathan S., Brewer, LaPrincess C. +2 more·2023·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Advances in computer science and data-analytic methods are driving a new era in mental health research and application. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies hold the potential to enhance the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of people experiencing mental health problems and to increase the reach and impact of mental health care. However, AI applications will not mitigate mental health disparities if they are built from historical data that reflect underlying social biases and inequities. AI models biased against sensitive classes could reinforce and even perpetuate existing inequities if these models create legacies that differentially impact who is diagnosed and treated, and how effectively. The current article reviews the health-equity implications of applying AI to mental health problems, outlines state-of-the-art methods for assessing and mitigating algorithmic bias, and presents a call to action to guide the development of fair-aware AI in psychological science.

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 · 10.1177/17456916221134490

Cites

226 of 229 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?

  • Biases in LLM-based chatbots may perpetuate social inequities, potentially harming underrepresented or stigmatized groups in a (mental) health context, e.g., through errors in diagnostic classifications, proposals of interventions, or mental health advice.

    “Biases in LLM-based chatbots may perpetuate social inequities, potentially harming underrepresented or stigmatized groups in a (mental) health context, e.g., through errors in diagnostic classifications, proposals of interventions, or mental health advice56.”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 7

  1. Berk R, Heidari H, Jabbari S, Joseph M, Kearns M, Morgenstern J, Neel S, & Roth A (2017). A convex framework for fair regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02409. · arXiv
  2. Chouldechova A, & Roth A (2018). The frontiers of fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08810. · arXiv
  3. Krishnapuram B, Williams D, Xue Y, Carin L, Figueiredo MA, & Hartemink AJ (2005). Active learning of features and labels. In Workshop on learning with multiple views at the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-05) (pp. 43– 50).
  4. Kuhn M (2009). The caret package. Journal of Statistical Software, 28(5).
  5. National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine. (2016). The promises and perils of digital strategies in achieving health equity: Workshop summary. National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK373441/ 27403485
  6. Richardson R, Schultz JM, & Crawford K (2019). Dirty data, bad predictions: How civil rights violations impact police data, predictive policing systems, and justice. NYU Law Review, 94, 15. https://www.nyulawreview.org/online-features/dirty-data-bad-predictions-how-civil-rights-violations-impact-police-data-predictive-policing-systems-and-justice/
  7. Techjury.net. (2019). Infographic: How AI is being deployed across industries. Robotics Business Review. Retrieved February 13 from https://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/ai/infographic-how-ai-is-being-deployed-across-industries/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Timmons, A. C., Duong, J. B., Simo Fiallo, N., Lee, T., Vo, H. P. Q., Ahle, M. W., Comer, J. S., Brewer, L. C., Frazier, S. L., & Chaspari, T.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Department of Psychology, Florida International University
  • Florida International University (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Colliga Apps Corporation, Austin, Texas
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Timmons, Adela C.
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2022-12-09
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
1062-1096
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W4311026115
Cited by
263
References
226
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
52.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R42MH123368)
  • National Science Foundation (1930019, DGE-0937362)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
algorithmic bias, artificial intelligence in mental health, health equity, mental health disparities, bias mitigation, algorithmic fairness, access to mental health care
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Awareness, Humans, Mental Health, Technology, Bias

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