When AI Knows You're Breaking: The Future of Mental Health Prediction
At Vanderbilt University Medical Centre, an algorithm silently watches. Every day, it scans through roughly 78,000 patient records, hunting for patterns invisible to human eyes. The Vanderbilt Suicide Attempt and Ideation Likelihood model, known as VSAIL, calculates the probability that someone will return to the hospital within 30 days for a suicide attempt. In prospective testing, the system flagged patients who would later report suicidal thoughts at a rate of one in 23. When combined with traditional face-to-face screening, the accuracy becomes startling: three out of every 200 patients in the highest risk category attempted suicide within the predicted timeframe.
The system works. That's precisely what makes the questions it raises so urgent.
As artificial intelligence grows increasingly sophisticated at predicting mental health crises before individuals recognise the signs themselves, we're confronting a fundamental tension: the potential to save lives versus the right to mental privacy. The technology exists. The algorithms are learning. The question is no longer whether AI can forecast our emotional futures, but who should be allowed to see those predictions, and what they're permitted to do with that knowledge.
The Technology of Prediction
Digital phenotyping sounds abstract until you understand what it actually measures. Your smartphone already tracks an extraordinary amount of behavioural data: typing speed and accuracy, the time between text messages, how long you spend on different apps, GPS coordinates revealing your movement patterns, even the ambient sound captured by your microphone. Wearable devices add physiological markers: heart rate variability, sleep architecture, galvanic skin response, physical activity levels. All of this data, passively collected without requiring conscious input, creates what researchers call a “digital phenotype” of your mental state.
The technology has evolved rapidly. Mindstrong Health, a startup co-founded by Thomas Insel after his tenure as director of the National Institute of Mental Health, developed an app that monitors smartphone usage patterns to detect depressive episodes early. Changes in how you interact with your phone can signal shifts in mental health before you consciously recognise them yourself.
CompanionMx, spun off from voice analysis company Cogito at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, takes a different approach. Patients record brief audio diaries several times weekly. The app analyses nonverbal markers such as tenseness, breathiness, pitch variation, volume, and range. Combined with smartphone metadata, the system generates daily scores sent directly to care teams, with sudden behavioural changes triggering alerts.
Stanford Medicine's Crisis-Message Detector 1 operates in yet another domain, analysing patient messages for content suggesting thoughts of suicide, self-harm, or violence towards others. The system reduced wait times for people experiencing mental health crises from nine hours to less than 13 minutes.
The accuracy of these systems continues to improve. A 2024 study published in Nature Medicine demonstrated that machine learning models using electronic health records achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.797, predicting crises with 58% sensitivity at 85% specificity over a 28-day window. Another system analysing social media posts demonstrated 89.3% accuracy in detecting early signs of mental health crises, with an average lead time of 7.2 days before human experts identified the same warning signs. For specific crisis types, performance varied: 91.2% for depressive episodes, 88.7% for manic episodes, 93.5% for suicidal ideation, and 87.3% for anxiety crises.
When Vanderbilt's suicide prediction model was adapted for use in U.S. Navy primary care settings, initial testing achieved an area under the curve of 77%. After retraining on naval healthcare data, performance jumped to 92%. These systems work better the more data they consume, and the more precisely tailored they become to specific populations.
But accuracy creates its own ethical complications. The better AI becomes at predicting mental health crises, the more urgent the question of access becomes.
The Privacy Paradox
The irony is cruel: approximately two-thirds of those with mental illness suffer without treatment, with stigma contributing substantially to this treatment gap. Self-stigma and social stigma lead to under-reported symptoms, creating fundamental data challenges for the very AI systems designed to help. We've built sophisticated tools to detect what people are trying hardest to hide.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in the United States and the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union establish frameworks for protecting health information. Under HIPAA, patients have broad rights to access their protected health information, though psychotherapy notes receive special protection. The GDPR goes further, classifying mental health data as a special category requiring enhanced protection, mandating informed consent and transparent data processing.
Practice diverges sharply from theory. Research published in 2023 found that 83% of free mobile health and fitness apps store data locally on devices without encryption. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights data breach portal, approximately 295 breaches were reported by the healthcare sector in the first half of 2023 alone, implicating more than 39 million individuals.
The situation grows murkier when we consider who qualifies as a “covered entity” under HIPAA. Mental health apps produced by technology companies often fall outside traditional healthcare regulations. As one analysis in the Journal of Medical Internet Research noted, companies producing AI mental health applications “are not subject to the same legal restrictions and ethical norms as the clinical community.” Your therapist cannot share your information without consent. The app on your phone tracking your mood may be subject to no such constraints.
Digital phenotyping complicates matters further because the data collected doesn't initially appear to be health information at all. When your smartphone logs that you sent fewer text messages this week, stayed in bed longer than usual, or searched certain terms at odd hours, each individual data point seems innocuous. In aggregate, analysed through sophisticated algorithms, these behavioural breadcrumbs reveal your mental state with startling accuracy. But who owns this data? Who has the right to analyse it? And who should receive the results?
The answers vary by jurisdiction. Some U.S. states indicate that patients own all their data, whilst others stipulate that patients own their data but healthcare organisations own the medical records themselves. For AI-generated predictions about future mental health states, the ownership question becomes even less clear: if the prediction didn't exist before the algorithm created it, who has rights to that forecast?
Medical Ethics Meets Machine Learning
The concept of “duty to warn” emerged from the 1976 Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case, which established that mental health professionals have a legal obligation to protect identifiable potential victims from serious threats made by patients. The duty to warn is rooted in the ethical principle of beneficence but exists in tension with autonomy and confidentiality.
AI prediction complicates this established ethical framework significantly. Traditional duty to warn applies when a patient makes explicit threats. What happens when an algorithm predicts a risk that the patient hasn't articulated and may not consciously feel?
Consider the practical implications. The Vanderbilt model flagged high-risk patients, but for every 271 people identified in the highest predicted risk group, only one returned for treatment for a suicide attempt. That means 270 individuals were labelled as high-risk when they would not, in fact, attempt suicide within the predicted timeframe. These false positives create cascading ethical dilemmas. Should all 271 people receive intervention? Each option carries potential harms: psychological distress from being labelled high-risk, the economic burden of unnecessary treatment, the erosion of autonomy, and the risk of self-fulfilling prophecy.
False negatives present the opposite problem. With very low false-negative rates in the lowest risk tiers (0.02% within universal screening settings and 0.008% without), the Vanderbilt system rarely misses genuinely high-risk patients. But “rarely” is not “never,” and even small false-negative rates translate to real people who don't receive potentially life-saving intervention.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness defines a mental health crisis as “any situation in which a person's behaviour puts them at risk of hurting themselves or others and/or prevents them from being able to care for themselves or function effectively in the community.” Yet although there are no ICD-10 or specific DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for mental health crises, their characteristics and features are implicitly understood among clinicians. Who decides the threshold at which an algorithmic risk score constitutes a “crisis” requiring intervention?
Various approaches to defining mental health crisis exist: self-definitions where the service user themselves defines their experience; risk-focused definitions centred on people at risk; theoretical definitions based on clinical frameworks; and negotiated definitions reached collaboratively. Each approach implies different stakeholders should have access to predictive information, creating incompatible frameworks that resist technological resolution.
The Commercial Dimension
The mental health app marketplace has exploded. Approximately 20,000 mental health apps are available in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, yet only five have received FDA approval. The vast majority operate in a regulatory grey zone. It's a digital Wild West where the stakes are human minds.
Surveillance capitalism, a term popularised by Shoshana Zuboff, describes an economic system that commodifies personal data. In the mental health context, this takes on particularly troubling dimensions. Once a mental health app is downloaded, data become dispossessed from the user and extracted with high velocity before being directed into tech companies' business models where they become a prized asset. These technologies position people at their most vulnerable as unwitting profit-makers, taking individuals in distress and making them part of a hidden supply chain for the marketplace.
Apple's Mindfulness app and Fitbit's Log Mood represent how major technology platforms are expanding from monitoring physical health into the psychological domain. Having colonised the territory of the body, Big Tech now has its sights on the psyche. When a platform knows your mental state, it can optimise content, advertisements, and notifications to exploit your vulnerabilities, all in service of engagement metrics that drive advertising revenue.
The insurance industry presents another commercial dimension fraught with discriminatory potential. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, signed into law in the United States in 2008, prohibits insurers from using genetic information to adjust premiums, deny coverage, or impose preexisting condition exclusions. Yet GINA does not cover life insurance, disability insurance, or long-term care insurance. Moreover, it addresses genetic information specifically, not the broader category of predictive health data generated by AI analysis of behavioural patterns.
If an algorithm can predict your likelihood of developing severe depression with 90% accuracy by analysing your smartphone usage, nothing in current U.S. law prevents a disability insurer from requesting that data and using it to deny coverage or adjust premiums. The disability insurance industry already discriminates against mental health conditions, with most policies paying benefits for physical conditions until retirement age whilst limiting coverage for behavioural health disabilities to 24 months. Predictive AI provides insurers with new tools to identify and exclude high-risk applicants before symptoms manifest.
Employment discrimination represents another commercial concern. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with mental health disabilities from workplace discrimination. In fiscal year 2021, employee allegations of unlawful discrimination based on mental health conditions accounted for approximately 30% of all ADA-related charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Yet predictive AI creates new avenues for discrimination that existing law struggles to address. An employer who gains access to algorithmic predictions of future mental health crises could make hiring, promotion, or termination decisions based on those forecasts, all whilst the individual remains asymptomatic and legally protected under disability law.
Algorithmic Bias and Structural Inequality
AI systems learn from historical data, and when that data reflects societal biases, algorithms reproduce and often amplify those inequalities. In psychiatry, women are more likely to receive personality disorder diagnoses whilst men receive PTSD diagnoses for the same trauma symptoms. Patients from racial minority backgrounds receive disproportionately high doses of psychiatric medications. These patterns, embedded in the electronic health records that train AI models, become codified in algorithmic predictions.
Research published in 2024 in Nature's npj Mental Health Research found that whilst mental health AI tools accurately predict elevated depression symptoms in small, homogenous populations, they perform considerably worse in larger, more diverse populations because sensed behaviours prove to be unreliable predictors of depression across individuals from different backgrounds. What works for one group fails for another, yet the algorithms often don't know the difference.
Label bias occurs when the criteria used to categorise predicted outcomes are themselves discriminatory. Measurement bias arises when features used in algorithm development fail to accurately represent the group for which predictions are made. Tools for capturing emotion in one culture may not accurately represent experiences in different cultural contexts, yet they're deployed universally.
Analysis of mental health terminology in GloVe and Word2Vec word embeddings, which form the foundation of many natural language processing systems, demonstrated significant biases with respect to religion, race, gender, nationality, sexuality, and age. These biases mean that algorithms may make systematically different predictions for people from different demographic groups, even when their actual mental health status is identical.
False positives in mental health prediction disproportionately affect marginalised populations. When algorithms trained on majority populations are deployed more broadly, false positive rates often increase for underrepresented groups, subjecting them to unnecessary intervention, surveillance, and labelling that carries lasting social and economic consequences.
Regulatory Gaps and Emerging Frameworks
The European Union's AI Act, signed in June 2024, represents the world's first binding horizontal regulation on AI. The Act establishes a risk-based approach, imposing requirements depending on the level of risk AI systems pose to health, safety, and fundamental rights. However, the AI Act has been criticised for excluding key applications from high-risk classifications and failing to define psychological harm.
A particularly controversial provision states that prohibitions on manipulation and persuasion “shall not apply to AI systems intended to be used for approved therapeutic purposes on the basis of specific informed consent.” Yet without clear definition of “therapeutic purposes,” European citizens risk AI providers using this exception to undermine personal sovereignty.
In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service is piloting various AI mental health prediction systems across NHS Trusts. The CHRONOS project develops AI and natural language processing capability to extract relevant information from patients' health records over time, helping clinicians triage patients and flag high-risk individuals. Limbic AI assists psychological therapists at Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust in tailoring responses to patients' mental health needs.
Parliamentary research notes that whilst purpose-built AI solutions can be effective in reducing specific symptoms and tracking relapse risks, ethical and legal issues tend not to be explicitly addressed in empirical studies, highlighting a significant gap in the field.
The United States lacks comprehensive AI regulation comparable to the EU AI Act. Mental health AI systems operate under a fragmented regulatory landscape involving FDA oversight for medical devices, HIPAA for covered entities, and state-level consumer protection laws. No FDA-approved or FDA-cleared AI applications currently exist in psychiatry specifically, though Wysa, an AI-based digital mental health conversational agent, received FDA Breakthrough Device designation.
The Stakeholder Web
Every stakeholder group approaches the question of access to predictive mental health data from different positions with divergent interests.
Individuals face the most direct impact. Knowing your own algorithmic risk prediction could enable proactive intervention: seeking therapy before a crisis, adjusting medication, reaching out to support networks. Yet the knowledge itself can become burdensome. Research on genetic testing for conditions like Huntington's disease shows that many at-risk individuals choose not to learn their status, preferring uncertainty to the psychological weight of a dire prognosis.
Healthcare providers need risk information to allocate scarce resources effectively and fulfil their duty to prevent foreseeable harm. Algorithmic triage could direct intensive support to those at highest risk. However, over-reliance on algorithmic predictions risks replacing clinical judgment with mechanical decision-making, potentially missing nuanced factors that algorithms cannot capture.
Family members and close contacts often bear substantial caregiving responsibilities. Algorithmic predictions could provide earlier notice, enabling them to offer support or seek professional intervention. Yet providing family members with access raises profound autonomy concerns. Adults have the right to keep their mental health status private, even from family.
Technology companies developing mental health AI have commercial incentives that may not align with user welfare. The business model of many platforms depends on engagement and data extraction. Mental health predictions provide valuable information for optimising content delivery and advertising targeting.
Insurers have financial incentives to identify high-risk individuals and adjust coverage accordingly. From an actuarial perspective, access to more accurate predictions enables more precise risk assessment. From an equity perspective, this enables systematic discrimination against people with mental health vulnerabilities. The tension between actuarial fairness and social solidarity remains unresolved in most healthcare systems.
Employers have legitimate interests in workplace safety and productivity but also potential for discriminatory misuse. Some occupations carry safety-critical responsibilities where mental health crises could endanger others (airline pilots, surgeons, nuclear plant operators). However, the vast majority of jobs do not involve such risks, and employer access creates substantial potential for discrimination.
Government agencies and law enforcement present perhaps the most contentious stakeholder category. Public health authorities have disease surveillance and prevention responsibilities that could arguably extend to mental health crisis prediction. Yet government access to predictive mental health data evokes dystopian scenarios of pre-emptive detention and surveillance based on algorithmic forecasts of future behaviour.
Accuracy, Uncertainty, and the Limits of Prediction
Even the most sophisticated mental health AI systems remain probabilistic, not deterministic. When external validation of the Vanderbilt model was performed on U.S. Navy primary care populations, initial accuracy dropped from 84% to 77% before retraining improved performance to 92%. Models optimised for one population may not transfer well to others.
Confidence intervals and uncertainty quantification remain underdeveloped in many clinical AI applications. A prediction of 80% probability sounds precise, but what are the confidence bounds on that estimate? Most current systems provide point estimates without robust uncertainty quantification, giving users false confidence in predictions that carry substantial inherent uncertainty.
The feedback loop problem poses another fundamental challenge. If an algorithm predicts someone is at high risk and intervention is provided, and the crisis is averted, was the prediction accurate or inaccurate? We cannot observe the counterfactual. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to learn whether interventions triggered by algorithmic predictions are actually beneficial.
The base rate problem cannot be ignored. Even with relatively high sensitivity and specificity, when predicting rare events (such as suicide attempts with a base rate of roughly 0.5% in the general population), positive predictive value remains low. With 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity for an event with 0.5% base rate, the positive predictive value is only about 4.3%. That means 95.7% of positive predictions are false positives.
The Prevention Paradox
The potential benefits of predictive mental health AI are substantial. With approximately 703,000 people dying by suicide globally each year, according to the World Health Organisation, even modest improvements in prediction and prevention could save thousands of lives. AI-based systems can identify individuals in crisis with high accuracy, enabling timely intervention and offering scalable mental health support.
Yet the prevention paradox reminds us that interventions applied to entire populations, whilst yielding aggregate benefits, may provide little benefit to most individuals whilst imposing costs on all. If we flag thousands of people as high-risk and provide intensive monitoring to prevent a handful of crises, we've imposed surveillance, anxiety, stigma, and resource costs on the many to help the few.
The question of access to predictive mental health information cannot be resolved by technology alone. It is fundamentally a question of values: how we balance privacy against safety, autonomy against paternalism, individual rights against collective welfare.
Toward Governance Frameworks
Several principles should guide the development of governance frameworks for predictive mental health AI.
Transparency must be non-negotiable. Individuals should know when their data is being collected and analysed for mental health prediction. They should understand what data is used, how algorithms process it, and who has access to predictions.
Consent should be informed, specific, and revocable. General terms-of-service agreements do not constitute meaningful consent for mental health prediction. Individuals should be able to opt out of predictive analysis without losing access to beneficial services.
Purpose limitation should restrict how predictive mental health data can be used. Data collected for therapeutic purposes should not be repurposed for insurance underwriting, employment decisions, law enforcement, or commercial exploitation without separate, explicit consent.
Accuracy standards and bias auditing must be mandatory. Algorithms should be regularly tested on diverse populations with transparent reporting of performance across demographic groups. When disparities emerge, they should trigger investigation and remediation.
Human oversight must remain central. Algorithmic predictions should augment, not replace, clinical judgment. Individuals should have the right to contest predictions, to have human review of consequential decisions, and to demand explanations.
Proportionality should guide access and intervention. More restrictive interventions should require higher levels of confidence in predictions. Involuntary interventions, in particular, should require clear and convincing evidence of imminent risk.
Accountability mechanisms must be enforceable. When predictive systems cause harm through inaccurate predictions, biased outputs, or privacy violations, those harmed should have meaningful recourse.
Public governance should take precedence over private control. Mental health prediction carries too much potential for exploitation and abuse to be left primarily to commercial entities and market forces.
The Road Ahead
We stand at a threshold. The technology to predict mental health crises before individuals recognise them themselves now exists and will only become more sophisticated. The question of who should have access to that information admits no simple answers because it implicates fundamental tensions in how we structure societies: between individual liberty and collective security, between privacy and transparency, between market efficiency and human dignity.
Different societies will resolve these tensions differently, reflecting diverse values and priorities. Some may embrace comprehensive mental health surveillance as a public health measure, accepting privacy intrusions in exchange for earlier intervention. Others may establish strong rights to mental privacy, limiting predictive AI to contexts where individuals explicitly seek assistance.
Yet certain principles transcend cultural differences. Human dignity requires that we remain more than the sum of our data points, that algorithmic predictions do not become self-fulfilling prophecies, that vulnerability not be exploited for profit. Autonomy requires that we retain meaningful control over information about our mental states and our emotional futures. Justice requires that the benefits and burdens of predictive technology be distributed equitably, not concentrated among those already privileged whilst risks fall disproportionately on marginalised communities.
The most difficult questions may not be technical but philosophical. If an algorithm can forecast your mental health crisis with 90% accuracy a week before you feel the first symptoms, should you want to know? Should your doctor know? Should your family? Your employer? Your insurer? Each additional party with access increases potential for helpful intervention but also for harmful discrimination.
Perhaps the deepest question is whether we want to live in a world where our emotional futures are known before we experience them. Prediction collapses possibility into probability. It transforms the open question of who we will become into a calculated forecast of who the algorithm expects us to be. In gaining the power to predict and possibly prevent mental health crises, we may lose something more subtle but equally important: the privacy of our own becoming, the freedom inherent in uncertainty, the human experience of confronting emotional darkness without having been told it was coming.
There's a particular kind of dignity in not knowing what tomorrow holds for your mind. The depressive episode that might visit next month, the anxiety attack that might strike next week, the crisis that might or might not materialise exist in a realm of possibility rather than probability until they arrive. Once we can predict them, once we can see them coming with algorithmic certainty, we change our relationship to our own mental experience. We become patients before we become symptomatic, risks before we're in crisis, data points before we're human beings in distress.
The technology exists. The algorithms are learning. The decisions about access, about governance, about the kind of society we want to create with these new capabilities, remain ours to make. For now.
Sources and References
Vanderbilt University Medical Centre. (2021-2023). VSAIL suicide risk model research. VUMC News. https://news.vumc.org
Walsh, C. G., et al. (2022). “Prospective Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Based, Real-Time Suicide Risk Model.” JAMA Network Open. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7955273/
Stanford Medicine. (2024). “Tapping AI to quickly predict mental crises and get help.” Stanford Medicine Magazine. https://stanmed.stanford.edu/ai-mental-crisis-prediction-intervention/
Nature Medicine. (2022). “Machine learning model to predict mental health crises from electronic health records.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01811-5
PMC. (2024). “Early Detection of Mental Health Crises through Artificial-Intelligence-Powered Social Media Analysis.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11433454/
JMIR. (2023). “Digital Phenotyping: Data-Driven Psychiatry to Redefine Mental Health.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10585447/
JMIR. (2023). “Digital Phenotyping for Monitoring Mental Disorders: Systematic Review.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10753422/
VentureBeat. “Cogito spins out CompanionMx to bring emotion-tracking to health care providers.” https://venturebeat.com/ai/cogito-spins-out-companionmx-to-bring-emotion-tracking-to-health-care-providers/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HIPAA Privacy Rule guidance and mental health information protection. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa
Oxford Academic. (2022). “Mental data protection and the GDPR.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences. https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/9/1/lsac006/6564354
PMC. (2024). “E-mental Health in the Age of AI: Data Safety, Privacy Regulations and Recommendations.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12231431/
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Depression, PTSD, & Other Mental Health Conditions in the Workplace: Your Legal Rights.” https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/depression-ptsd-other-mental-health-conditions-workplace-your-legal-rights
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.” https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/genetic-information-nondiscrimination-act-2008
PMC. (2019). “THE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT AT AGE 10.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8095822/
Nature. (2024). “Measuring algorithmic bias to analyse the reliability of AI tools that predict depression risk using smartphone sensed-behavioural data.” npj Mental Health Research. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-024-00057-y
Oxford Academic. (2020). “Stigma, biomarkers, and algorithmic bias: recommendations for precision behavioural health with artificial intelligence.” JAMIA Open. https://academic.oup.com/jamiaopen/article/3/1/9/5714181
PMC. (2023). “A Call to Action on Assessing and Mitigating Bias in Artificial Intelligence Applications for Mental Health.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10250563/
Scientific Reports. (2024). “Fairness and bias correction in machine learning for depression prediction across four study populations.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58427-7
European Parliament. (2024). “EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence.” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence
The Regulatory Review. (2025). “Regulating Artificial Intelligence in the Shadow of Mental Health.” https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/09/silverbreit-regulating-artificial-intelligence-in-the-shadow-of-mental-heath/
UK Parliament POST. “AI and Mental Healthcare – opportunities and delivery considerations.” https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0737/
NHS Cheshire and Merseyside. “Innovative AI technology streamlines mental health referral and assessment process.” https://www.cheshireandmerseyside.nhs.uk
SAMHSA. “National Guidelines for Behavioural Health Crisis Care.” https://www.samhsa.gov/mental-health/national-behavioral-health-crisis-care
MDPI. (2023). “Surveillance Capitalism in Mental Health: When Good Apps Go Rogue.” https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/12/679
SAGE Journals. (2020). “Psychology and Surveillance Capitalism: The Risk of Pushing Mental Health Apps During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022167820937498
PMC. (2020). “Digital Phenotyping and Digital Psychotropic Drugs: Mental Health Surveillance Tools That Threaten Human Rights.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7762923/
PMC. (2022). “Artificial intelligence and suicide prevention: A systematic review.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8988272/
ScienceDirect. (2024). “Artificial intelligence-based suicide prevention and prediction: A systematic review (2019–2023).” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1566253524004512
Scientific Reports. (2025). “Early detection of mental health disorders using machine learning models using behavioural and voice data analysis.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-00386-8
Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer
Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.
His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.
ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk