arXiv (All)
open access
Mental Health AI Safety Claims Must Preserve Temporal Evidence
The safety of mental health AI is often judged at the wrong temporal scale. Current evaluations typically score isolated responses, endpoint outcomes, or aggregate dialogue quality, while clinically consequential failures may arise from the order and accumulation of interactions themselves, includin
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Evaluation Frameworks for Clinical AI Incorporating Validation Strategies, Real-World Applicability, and Ethical Principles: Scoping Review.#395954
- AI Alignment: The Structure of Objective Correction#687977
- Episode 7: Pioneering Al-Driven Mental Health 911 Response#1310782
- From "assistant" to "autonomous": legal liability and ethical traceability frameworks for generative AI in clinical misdiagnosis scenarios, with a special focus on paediatrics.#371457
- Beyond the algorithm: why oncology nursing in Asia-Pacific needs evidence-based AI evaluation.#136085
Record · ID 1402195
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive