A scoping review was conducted following the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [27]: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting of data; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results; and (6) consulting with stakeholders.

Given that this area is evolving, we used scoping review methodology to identify AI methods previously studied, as well as to determine gaps in the literature. We developed our research questions following consensus meetings among the research group. Our aim was to identify AI methods that have been studied to detect psychosis relapse. The research question has a broad focus, given that there is likely to be substantial heterogeneity across AI models used in different studies to detect psychosis relapse.

Our primary outcome of interest was the relapse of psychosis, defined as a clinically significant worsening of psychotic symptoms. Relapse was identified within studies through changes in validated psychometric scores (eg, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), as well as through the use of proxy measures for relapse, including psychiatric hospital admission, emergency department visits, and medication adjustments (initiation, changes, or dose increases). No a priori restriction was placed on the AI tool modality used to detect the relapse of psychosis.

The scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines (Checklist 1). The scoping review protocol was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (YKQMG). Covidence software was used to manage the systematic search and screening process [28].

We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to January 7, 2026, with no restrictions on the publication date. The search strategy combined keywords and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The search strategy included terms (Textbox 1) such as:

[schizophreni* OR schizoaff* OR psychotic OR psychosis] AND [“artificial intelligence” OR “AI” OR “machine learning” OR “deep learning” OR “digital phenotyping” OR “language processing” OR “SLP” OR “NLP”]

We performed forward and backward (“snowballing”) citation tracking on key articles identified during our search to augment our initial search.

Data from each included paper were extracted independently by 2 reviewers using a standardized data extraction form developed a priori and piloted on a subset of articles (the data extraction template can be found in the PRISMA-ScR checklist). Extracted data included study characteristics (authors, publication year, country, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, age, gender, and diagnosis), outcome definitions, data sources (electronic health records, mobile devices, and wearable sensors), AI model specifications (algorithm type, training or validation approach, and feature selection), and reported performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). We reported global performance metrics aggregated across all participants rather than individualized or patient-specific results reported in some studies. Discrepancies in data extraction were resolved by consensus, with consultation from a third reviewer when necessary.

Extracted data were charted in a summary table (see “Results” section), prepared independently by 2 data extractors. Charted data were compared across the data extractors, and consensus was reached with senior investigator input for final tabulation. Results are presented using a figure and the summary tables to facilitate comparison across studies where appropriate. Considering the heterogeneity in study designs, populations, AI methodologies, and outcome definitions, as well as the novelty of the topic, the studies were deemed unsuitable for quantitative meta-analysis following consultation with our departmental statistician. Narrative synthesis was used with detailed descriptive analysis of study characteristics, methodological approaches, and reported outcomes. Risk of bias assessment was also considered and further discussed with departmental statisticians; however, this was deemed inappropriate in the context of the heterogeneous data available across papers and was not deemed essential given that a scoping review protocol was used for the study.

Articles for inclusion were discussed by the research team at consensus meetings, and study results were reviewed by the research team. Once the data were summarized, the study results were discussed at meetings with research stakeholders, including senior authors. The synthesis of the findings and implications of the study was summarized using the consensus opinion of the research team, which included input from several research groups and a mental illness advocacy network. Consultation with AI expertise (SD) was conducted during the screening process and for the synthesis of study findings.

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart [29] for the study is available in Figure 1. A total of 13,748 study abstracts were screened for relevance, of which 171 studies underwent full-text review, yielding 10 eligible studies published between 2019 and 2025 (Table 1) [30-39]. Sample sizes ranged from 7 to 268 total participants, and the majority of studies were conducted in the United States. No eligible studies were identified through gray literature or preprint sources.

The primary data modalities used for relapse detection included mobile and wearable device sensor data (GPS location, phone calls, SMS text messaging patterns, and accelerometer data), internet search behavior, and speech or language data. Smartphone-based monitoring was used in 6 of 10 studies. Two studies used social media platforms to detect psychosis relapse (Birnbaum et al [30] on Facebook posts and Nguyen et al [31] on multiplatform content). Other sources included internet search activity [32], smartwatch wearables [33-35], and audiovisual recordings [33].

Across the 10 studies, AI methods used can be categorized into 4 groups as follows:

A key challenge in relapse detection is the rarity of events, which leads to class imbalance. Anomaly detection, defined as the statistical and computational task of identifying observations or patterns in data that deviate significantly from an established model of normal behavior [40,41], represents a common method to handle the skewed distribution of relapse events in digital phenotyping studies [42-44]. This framework was integrated with deep learning approaches in 2 studies [33,34]. Additionally, Lamichhane et al [37] used anomaly detection as a comparison baseline for their supervised long–short-term memory approach.

Additional strategies used to manage class imbalance included restricting analysis to individuals who experienced relapse [30], and training models only on nonrelapse periods while evaluating them on relapse events [34]. As part of a temporal rebalancing strategy, Birnbaum et al [32] compared different relapse-proximal and relapse-distal window lengths (eg, 1 mo vs 1 mo, 1 mo vs 2 mo, and 1 mo vs 3 mo) and found that the 1- to 1-month window provided the best trade-off for classification. A similar time frame was analyzed by other studies [36,39]. This approach not only mitigates class imbalance in longitudinal data but also reflects the phenomenology of psychosis relapse, which often emerges gradually with an insidious onset rather than as a discrete, switch-like event.

Reported sensitivities (or recall) ranged from 0.25 [36] to 0.77 [37], which was achieved using a personalized long–short-term memory, although precision was low in light of relapse being a rare event. Specificity ranged from 0.71 [30] to 0.88 [36]. AUROC values, when provided, ranged from approximately 0.633 to 0.779 [33,34]. The F₁-scores reported ranged from 0.72 [31] to 0.9817 [35], while the F₂-score ranged from 0.16 to 0.3. Performance metrics for each study are presented in Table 2.

Focusing on linguistic aspects of relapse detection, multiple lines of evidence have identified specific alterations, including the use of words related to the categories of “anger,” “death,” or “swear,” and, more generally, words pertaining to negative affect [30-32].

Model validation approaches varied considerably across studies. As most studies included modest sample sizes with few relapse events, internal validation was common. Adler et al [36] used Monte Carlo cross-validation with 100 iterations alongside multiple data splits (training, cross-validation, and test sets). Leave-one-patient-out cross-validation, often with nested cross-validation for hyperparameter tuning, was implemented by Lamichhane et al [37], Zhou et al [38], and Tsakmaki et al [35]. Traditional train-test splits were used by several studies: Nguyen et al [31] used an 80:20 split with 5-fold stratified cross-validation for hyperparameter optimization, while Birnbaum et al [30,32] used a 90:10 split and other training/validation splits, respectively. Zlatintsi et al [33] and Yan et al [34] both implemented 5-fold cross-validation with systematic data partitioning. Only 1 study [32] validated findings in an independent external cohort (N=30), demonstrating a marked reduction in performance (recall dropped from 0.9897 to 0.851 in the validation sample).

This study presents a scoping review of AI methods used to detect relapse of psychosis. We identified 10 relevant articles that combined different methodologies to detect relapse of psychosis, including smartphone- and smartwatch-based monitoring, EMAs or diaries, social media activity, internet searches, and audiovisual recordings of patients with psychosis.

Digital phenotyping, consisting of active, passive, or combined data collection, has emerged as the most common framework for collecting data used in the detection of psychosis relapse. Several mobile phone apps have been developed and adopted to detect relapse through digital phenotyping, including CrossCheck [36-39], MindLAMP [43,44], Beiwe [42,43], and SleepSight [45]; however, to our knowledge, only CrossCheck has been paired with AI methods. The specific AI models deployed used supervised machine learning, deep learning, and computational statistical methods, including anomaly detection algorithms, automated time-series analysis, and associational pattern detection models.

Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity noted in terms of the efficacy of detection results, with sensitivities ranging from 0.25 to 0.77 and specificities from 0.06 to 0.88. AUROC values generally indicated moderate discrimination (0.633‐0.779). Where reported, precision was low (0.06 in Lamichhane et al [37] and 0.063 in Zhou et al [38], drawing from the same CrossCheck population), reflecting the difficulty of modeling relapse events against a preponderance of nonrelapse observations.

This review illustrates emerging but heterogeneous trends in the use of AI models as predictors of psychosis relapse. Small sample sizes and widespread variations in methodology limit generalizability, but these preliminary results suggest the need to explore this approach through further studies.

While the significant heterogeneity of the included studies precludes any definitive conclusion, several promising directions emerged from this review. Passive digital phenotyping has been the most widely studied method for long-term monitoring and demonstrates good potential for detecting psychosis relapse (eg, recall 0.77 in the study by Lamichhane et al [37]). Compared to active digital phenotyping like EMA, passive sensing offers a viable and effective method with lower participant burden. Wearable-based physiologic monitoring, as used in the e-Prevention cohort [33-35], represents a complementary approach with the advantage of capturing continuous signals, such as heart rate variability, independently of smartphone engagement. Overall, personalized models achieved the strongest performance in this review, suggesting individual-level modeling is a promising direction for future work.

The adoption of AI in clinical practice will depend on multiple factors: access to technical resources, cultural readiness to engage with digital tools and AI among clinicians and service users, and health system infrastructure. Given that approximately 80% of people in high-income countries own a smartphone [46], smartphone-based digital phenotyping represents one of the most practical approaches to implementation.

Encouragingly, good compliance has been reported in related contexts: Busk et al [47] observed 91% adherence to the Monsenso system in individuals with bipolar disorder, though this platform has not yet been adapted to psychosis relapse detection. However, a systematic review has cautioned that such compliance rates may be inflated due to selection bias, particularly given that participants consenting to research involvement might be more willing to engage with digital monitoring [15]. Furthermore, monitoring behavior itself may be influenced by a Hawthorne effect, potentially limiting generalizability [15].

In a recent mixed methods study [48], stakeholders, including young people, viewed AI-informed mobile mental health apps as promising tools for prevention and self-support, particularly when they offer tailored feedback, personalized interventions, and user-friendly designs. However, in the same study, participants emphasized the need for transparency, data privacy, and user control over AI-driven features. Similarly, a qualitative study on passive sensing to detect relapse in individuals with psychosis highlighted that some participants felt uneasy about continuous monitoring, especially location tracking, which they perceived as intrusive and threatening to their privacy [49].

A key consideration for future implementation will be the interpretability of AI models. Computational anomaly detection approaches [42,43] offer relatively transparent insights into which behavioral features deviate before relapse, whereas most deep learning models remain “black boxes.” None of the included studies adopted explainable AI techniques, such as Shapley Additive Explanations or Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations, which attribute a model’s prediction to specific input features [50-52], with the exception of 1 study by Nguyen et al [31]. Explainability is crucial in clinical psychiatry to ensure that clinicians and service users trust the reasons why a system might flag elevated relapse risk. Integrating explainable AI frameworks alongside model development will enhance transparency, user confidence, and regulatory readiness without sacrificing predictive accuracy.

A lack of interpretability can also contribute to the practical challenges frequently observed in digital monitoring systems such as alarm fatigue. Continuous monitoring systems may generate frequent alerts, including false alarms, due to noise in behavioral data or transient fluctuations not related to relapse [53]. Excessive alarm risk can desensitize clinicians and service users, likely reducing engagement with the system [54]. Adaptive threshold–based alarm systems, which adjust detection limits according to individual behavioral baselines, may help reduce false alarms while maintaining sensitivity to true relapse signals [53]. Future work should consider methods that optimize alarm specificity to minimize alarm burden while preserving clinical sensitivity.

Finally, a related challenge concerns the reliability of the relapse labels used to evaluate these models. Birnbaum et al [30] examined false alarms in detail by performing clinical chart reviews, highlighting how many of these signals actually corresponded to clinical deterioration. The results suggested that model performance may be underestimated, underscoring the need to consider complementary methods to monitor relapse, clinical deterioration, and medication adherence [55].

The reported performance metrics should be interpreted cautiously in light of several methodological challenges, with class imbalance representing a ubiquitous concern across studies. For example, while 20 out of 63 patients from the CrossCheck cohort experienced relapse, only 3.7% of the observed data fell within near-relapse windows. Several studies adopted strategies to address this, including anomaly detection frameworks [34,36], one-class classification [30], and temporal rebalancing through relapse-proximal windowing; however, precision remained low where reported [37,38], indicating that a high proportion of model-generated alerts would likely be false positives in clinical practice.

Validation strategies also varied significantly. As Lamichhane et al [37] noted, Wang et al [56] used random k-fold cross-validation on longitudinal data, which risks introducing temporal information leakage, whereby data collected after a given prediction time point may inadvertently inform model training, potentially inflating performance estimates [57]. In contrast, leave-one-patient-out cross-validation with sequential prediction, as implemented by Lamichhane et al [37] and Zhou et al [38], better approximates prospective clinical deployment, and notably, these studies reported comparatively modest performance.

It is also important to consider the degree of dataset overlap across the included studies. Four studies [36-39] drew from the same CrossCheck cohort, while 3 studies [33-35] used the e-Prevention cohort from Athens. As such, the included studies effectively represent a limited number of independent patient samples, which should be considered when appraising the cumulative strength of the evidence presented.

The findings of this scoping review should be carefully interpreted in light of numerous limitations. Overall, the main limitations across studies were modest sample sizes and marked heterogeneity in AI methodologies, data modalities, validation strategies, and reporting of performance metrics. Many studies relied on pilot or feasibility samples with short follow-up periods, which may not capture the full clinical trajectory of psychosis relapse. Additionally, most studies were conducted in high-income countries and predominantly involved younger adult samples, further limiting generalizability. Our search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles and did not include gray literature, such as conference proceedings or preprints. While several conference abstracts were identified during screening, none of these met the criteria for inclusion.

Relapse definitions varied considerably across studies, ranging from psychometric thresholds (eg, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score changes) to proxy measures such as hospitalization or medication adjustments, complicating cross-study comparison of model performance. Methodologically, many studies tested multiple machine learning or deep learning algorithms on the same dataset with little justification, often in a trial-and-error fashion. This approach risks overfitting and weakens reproducibility. For feature-based data, reproducibility could be improved in future studies through transparent feature selection and stability checks using penalized regression or bootstrapped resampling.

Given that interoperability and integration with existing health systems will be important for future clinical implementation, overall, most studies identified remain at an early, exploratory stage. Based on these findings, fundamental issues such as methodological rigor, replication, and validation represent current challenges for the field.

There is much opportunity to further develop this field, although it should be acknowledged that research will require adequate resources and expertise. An important question for future research is whether combining these AI methods could result in more accurate detection of psychosis with higher sensitivity and specificity. This might require research groups to collaborate and share expertise to develop AI methods. In a comparable context, AI-based detection using electroencephalography data has achieved robust and reproducible performance, offering a useful benchmark for research on psychosis relapse [58]. Future research should also aim to replicate AI model findings in prospectively collected data, and studies should include larger and more diversified patient populations.

Other potential applications of the AI methods identified in this scoping review include supporting psychiatric diagnosis [59], predicting transition to psychosis among individuals with clinical high risk, and reducing clinical workloads by delivering psychometric scales to individuals with psychosis [60]. The recent emergence of large language models could contribute further to this field. Early studies indicate that large language models may be able to detect speech changes early in psychosis relapse, which could provide an efficacious approach for relapse detection [61,62].

Emerging regulations, such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and the European Health Data Space, are helpful in guiding the responsible use of AI in psychiatry [63]. These frameworks emphasize transparency, explainability, and secure data sharing—principles that can underpin the safe translation of AI approaches into clinical practice.

AI methods, particularly when integrated with passive digital phenotyping approaches using smartphones and wearable devices, show promise in detecting relapse of psychosis. The use of personalized approaches with individual-level modeling shows the most promise based on our findings and merits further research. Nonetheless, current evidence remains preliminary, and notably, there is a lack of replication across most studies identified in this scoping review. Hence, it is difficult to recommend any particular approach for usage in clinical practice, and there are several potential barriers to implementing AI methods in real-world clinical practice. Developing this field further will require large collaborations across research groups, combining expertise across medical and nonmedical fields, while incorporating lived experience input for the development of new AI methods.