Artificial Intelligence-driven Biomarker Discovery for Precision Psychiatry
- 1Department of Medicine and Surgery, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy
- 2Oasi Research Institute-IRCCS, Troina, Italy
Abstract
Poor phenotype quality and small cohorts remain major constraints in psychiatric biomarker research, and recent methodological advances increasingly address them. Language models turn clinical text into analysable variables at a scale manual chart review cannot reach. Self-supervised models learn from the unlabelled signals psychiatry already collects. Variant-effect prediction makes molecular interpretation computable, and research agents have generated and experimentally confirmed candidates outside psychiatry. These capabilities act early, on what is measured, what can be learned from it and which candidates are proposed. None of the artificial intelligence capabilities reviewed here yet reaches the stages at which a candidate becomes a clinical test. Producing candidates is becoming cheap while qualifying them is not. This review is organised around that asymmetry rather than by disorder or marker catalogue. It separates the measured characteristic, the prediction model and the intended clinical use, and treats method family as distinct from evidential stage. Across the selected evidence, discrimination is supported more strongly in development data than in independent evaluation, and prospective evidence that model-guided use improves care is scarce. Many reported metrics also address a simpler task than the intended decision: diagnosis instead of differential diagnosis, general prognosis instead of differential treatment benefit. The review proposes a six-stage framework linking intended use, measurement validity, model evaluation, comparative utility and monitored deployment, and places each capability on it, clarifying where methodological progress can accelerate discovery and where conventional clinical validation remains indispensable.
Related
- Editorial: Artificial intelligence and anti-cancer drugs: advancing discovery, personalization, and precision oncology
- Artificial intelligence and anti-cancer drugs: advancing discovery, personalization, and precision oncology
- Burnout- and Depression-Like Functional Collapse States — A Within-Person Biomarker Framework for Precision Psychiatry: State-Dependent Multisystem Regulation in High Processing Cost Phenotypes (HPCPh)
- Digital Psychiatry with Physical Artificial Intelligence: Recent Advances and Limitations
- Acceptability of artificial intelligence in psychiatry: A script-based and network analysis study among French psychiatrists
BibTeX
@article{serretti2026artificial,
title = {{Artificial Intelligence-driven Biomarker Discovery for Precision Psychiatry}},
author = {Alessandro Serretti},
journal = {Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.9758/cpn.26.1519},
url = {https://doi.org/10.9758/cpn.26.1519},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Artificial Intelligence-driven Biomarker Discovery for Precision Psychiatry
AU - Alessandro Serretti
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
JO - Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience
DO - 10.9758/cpn.26.1519
UR - https://doi.org/10.9758/cpn.26.1519
AB - Poor phenotype quality and small cohorts remain major constraints in psychiatric biomarker research, and recent methodological advances increasingly address them. Language models turn clinical text into analysable variables at a scale manual chart review cannot reach. Self-supervised models learn from the unlabelled signals psychiatry already collects. Variant-effect prediction makes molecular interpretation computable, and research agents have generated and experimentally confirmed candidates outside psychiatry. These capabilities act early, on what is measured, what can be learned from it and which candidates are proposed. None of the artificial intelligence capabilities reviewed here yet reaches the stages at which a candidate becomes a clinical test. Producing candidates is becoming cheap while qualifying them is not. This review is organised around that asymmetry rather than by disorder or marker catalogue. It separates the measured characteristic, the prediction model and the intended clinical use, and treats method family as distinct from evidential stage. Across the selected evidence, discrimination is supported more strongly in development data than in independent evaluation, and prospective evidence that model-guided use improves care is scarce. Many reported metrics also address a simpler task than the intended decision: diagnosis instead of differential diagnosis, general prognosis instead of differential treatment benefit. The review proposes a six-stage framework linking intended use, measurement validity, model evaluation, comparative utility and monitored deployment, and places each capability on it, clarifying where methodological progress can accelerate discovery and where conventional clinical validation remains indispensable.
SN - 1738-1088
SN - 2093-4327
ER -