The team analyzed data from the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). This was the first year the large‑scale, nationally representative survey asked psilocybin‑specific questions, enabling the researchers to gain a more accurate picture of past‑year use among the 58,633 respondents. Previous national surveys have grouped psilocybin with other hallucinogens and have focused on lifetime use rather than its use during the past 12 months.

“Prior surveys only captured lifetime use, which tells us little about current use patterns; someone who tried psilocybin once in college a decade ago and someone using it regularly today look identical in that data. Past-year gives us a much more clinically relevant picture of who is using psilocybin right now and what factors are associated with their use,” said first author Kevin Yang, MD, resident physician in the Department of Psychiatry at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

The research found:

• 18–25 year-olds had 1.4x the odds of psilocybin use compared to those ages 35–49, while those over 50 had about one-third lower odds
• Males had 1.7x the odds compared to females and white respondents had 2.5x the odds of Black respondents and 1.4x the odds of Hispanic respondents
• The use of cannabis and hallucinogens like LSD, MDMA and ketamine was strongly associated with past-year psilocybin use.
• Alcohol use disorder and prescription stimulant misuse were also correlated with psilocybin use.
• Individuals with a major depressive episode in the past year had higher odds of psilocybin use.

The findings have implications for clinical practice. Over the past decade, clinical trials have revealed that psilocybin has promising therapeutic effects for depression and treatment‑resistant depression, but the safety profile of unsupervised, naturalistic use remains unclear. Unlike controlled clinical settings where participants are carefully screened, doses are standardized, and psychological support is provided, naturalistic use lacks these safeguards.

“When psilocybin is used outside of a clinical setting, the risks look very different. We’ve seen reports of anxiety, paranoia and prolonged psychological distress, and there are also potential interactions with antidepressants that clinicians need to look out for,” said Yang.

He says the findings highlight the need for clinicians to be aware of psilocybin use among their patients, particularly those with depression.

“With 8 million Americans using psilocybin in the past year, this is something that psychiatrists and other clinicians should be asking about, including why patients are using it and what benefits they perceive, as well as being prepared to counsel them on harm reduction and potential risks,” said Yang.

Looking forward, Yang says longitudinal studies that track the mental health of people over time as they use psilocybin are needed, as well as increased public health surveillance as de‑criminalization and potential FDA approval of the substance progress.

Additional co-authors on the study include: Avery Eun, UC San Diego School of Medicine; Joseph J. Palamar, NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Read the full study here.

Diabetes and obesity have long been linked to an increased risk of mental health symptoms. Similarly, individuals with mental disorders have an elevated risk of metabolic diseases such as obesity and diabetes. Researchers have working to disentangle the connections between these conditions.

Previous evidence on the effects of GLP-1 medications on anxiety and depressive disorders has been somewhat inconsistent, but it has been largely based on small studies. The new paper, published in The Lancet Psychiatry, includes data from nearly 100,000 participants, over 20,000 of whom had used GLP-1 medications to treat diabetes and obesity. Participants were followed through Swedish national registers between 2009 and 2022.

The results showed that the use of GLP-1 medications – particularly semaglutide – was associated with a reduction in workplace absence and in lower rates of hospital care for psychiatric issues. During periods of semaglutide use, the reduction was 42% compared with periods when GLP-1 medications were not used. For depression, the risk was 44% lower, and for anxiety disorders, 38% lower.

In addition, semaglutide use was associated with a lower risk of substance use disorders: hospital care and sickness absence related to substance use were 47% lower during periods of semaglutide use compared with periods without GLP-1 medication. The use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was also associated with a reduced risk of suicidal behaviour.

One of the study’s authors, Professor Mark Taylor from Griffith University, says such results were to be expected: ‘An earlier study examining Swedish registers found the use of GLP-1 medications to be associated with a reduced risk of alcohol use disorder. Alcohol-related problems often have downstream effects on mood and anxiety, so we expected the effect to be positive on these as well.’

However, the magnitude of the association surprised the researchers. ‘Because this is a registry-based study, we cannot determine exactly why or how these medications affect mood symptoms, but the association was quite strong,’ says Prof Markku Lähteenvuo from the University of Eastern Finland. ‘It is possible that, in addition to factors such as reduced alcohol consumption, weight loss-related improvements in body image, or relief associated with better glycaemic control in diabetes, there may also be direct neurobiological mechanisms involved – for example, through changes in the functioning of the brain’s reward system.’

“When we negatively interpret a situation, it impacts how we feel and respond—especially in people experiencing anxiety and depression,” said senior author Courtney Beard, PhD,  director of the Cognition and Affect Research Education (CARE) Laboratory at McLean Hospital, a member of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system. “By providing a simple, game-like exercise through an app, we have shown that we can help individuals gain insight into their thinking patterns in a more accessible and engaging way, that leads to meaningful improvements.”

Access to evidence-based treatments for anxiety and depression remains a significant challenge for many individuals due to provider shortages, high costs, and stigma surrounding mental health care. Digital tools have the potential to bridge these gaps; however, most available apps are not rigorously studied, resulting in a wide variance in quality and effectiveness. In addition, users often drop off these apps shortly after download. The researchers designed HabitWorks with these limitations in mind, working with an advisory board of individuals with lived experience of anxiety and depression.

In their new study, the investigators enrolled 340 adults across 44 states, who were randomized to use the HabitWorks app for four weeks or to a control condition that involved self-assessment surveys tracking symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Participants using HabitWorks reported significantly greater improvements in interpretation bias, functioning, and overall mental health symptom severity after one month compared to the control group. HabitWorks also achieved excellent retention rates with 77.8% of participants still using the app in week 4 and 84.4% of participants completing the post-intervention assessment.

“One thing that makes our approach unique in digital mental health is its focus on short, five-minute exercises,” said lead author Alexandra Silverman, PhD, a clinical investigator in the CARE Laboratory. “Unlike traditional interventions that mimic long therapy sessions, HabitWorks aligns with how people use their phones in short bursts, creating an approach that fits into daily life.”

HabitWorks is currently not available to the public. Further research is needed to identify which populations would benefit most from HabitWorks, the longevity of its effects and methods for delivering the intervention beyond a research setting. For more information on HabitWorks and to sign up for its waitlist, visit this website.

Authorship: In addition to Silverman and Beard, Mass General Brigham authors include Gabriela Kovarsky Rotta and Doah Shin.
Disclosures: None.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH12937) and by Harvard Medical School’s Livingston Fellowship and McLean Hospital’s Pope-Hintz Endowed Fellowship.
Paper cited: Silverman, A. et al. “Randomized Controlled Trial of Smartphone-Based Interpretation Bias Intervention for Anxiety and Depression” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology DOI: xxx

Research led by the University of Southampton and King’s College London examined the experiences of parents navigating waiting lists for ADHD diagnosis with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in the UK.

NHS data for the end of September 2025 shows that of those children (up to 17 years old) waiting for an assessment with the service, over 63 percent spent more than a year on the list, and a third of these were waiting over two years.

“CAMHS are experiencing  enormous demand to offer timely support to young people. Staff working in these services are under huge pressure, and in-turn, parents and their children, are also suffering – with some concern that long wait times could exacerbate ADHD symptoms,” explains lead author Dr Ellen Hedstrom.

She adds: “Through our study, we wanted to better understand how parents experience the time between their child’s referral, an ADHD assessment, and a diagnostic outcome. Also, what impact this has on them and their child.”

Study findings are published in the journal Health Expectations.

The researchers conducted anonymised interviews with a total of 41 parents of children aged between five and 11 years old. Their wait times ranged between seven months and over two years. Thirty percent of participants fell between an 18 and 24 month wait, and ten percent over two years. About 50 percent of children hadn’t had their initial ADHD assessment at the time of interview.

Strong feedback was given to the research team by parents. Many of felt that:

• Communication about wait time status was either non-existent or unsatisfactory.

• Lengthy wait times negatively impacted the mental health and wellbeing of both themselves and their child.

• Uncertainty led them to feelings of powerlessness, anxiety and being forgotten.

• Finding a crisis care contact was a struggle, or that support they’d accessed was inadequate.

• There’s pressure to get a diagnosis because it can be essential to access support or treatment, for example at school.

Many parents believed there was a disparity between the support they felt they needed and the support they received.

As one parent, Jayne, put it: “It’s hard because there is no support, at the moment, until you get that diagnosis and you’re forever in limbo.”

Another, Jaz, said: “We’ve wasted over 2 years of her education, it is a huge percentage. And in that time, she was just getting further and further behind.”

Others were grappling with whether they should try and find the money to go private, as in the case of Sarah: “We are struggling a bit and it would be nice to know whether we should be trying to save up to get him seen privately, if it’s gonna be years and years, then that’s what we’d do. If it’s gonna be another 6 months, then we’ll wait.”

At the same turn, there was also empathy for health care staff and understanding that clinical services are under enormous strain. Some parents said they wanted to place as few demands as possible on staff, due to this.

Parents’ suggestions for improvement included regular updates of their status on the waiting list, including confirmation of wait times; a digitised system where parents could logon, check any progress, or book appointments; also, the idea of a named key-worker who they could turn to for help and support while waiting. Parents also expressed the need for help with skills and strategies for themselves to manage the behaviour of their children.

Meanwhile, the authors of the study point to a recent successful local authority scheme which piloted a neurodiversity tool – offering early profiling from trained professionals. This gave parents and schools  knowledge for early intervention to help children while they wait for formal diagnosis.

“Many tools and platforms already exist, or could be developed to meet the needs of CAMHS,” concludes Dr Hedstrom. “This would not only give parents more autonomy in the way that they manage their time on a wait list and how they access much-needed information, but also alleviate the burden on mental health services, resulting in a more efficient service.”

1. The paper, ‘Until You Get the Diagnosis You’re Forever in Limbo’—Parents’ Experiences of Waiting for an Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Assessment With Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, is published in the journal Health Expectations – DOI: 10.1111/hex.70569 and can be read here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70569
2. For interviews contact, Steve Williams, Media Manager, University of Southampton. +44 23 80593 212
3. The University of Southampton drives original thinking, turns knowledge into action and impact, and creates solutions to the world’s challenges. We are among the top 100 institutions globally (QS World University Rankings 2026). Our academics are leaders in their fields, forging links with high-profile international businesses and organisations, and inspiring a 25,000-strong community of exceptional students, from over 135 countries worldwide. Through our high-quality education, the University helps students on a journey of discovery to realise their potential and join our global network of over 300,000 alumni. www.southampton.ac.uk
4. For more about KCL visit: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/

Past scholarly research has found that most Americans say they support mental health policies. Jake Haselswerdt, an associate professor of political science in Mizzou’s College of Arts and Science, wanted to take the topic a step further by asking whether mental health policies actually matter when people choose to vote for a political candidate.

Drawing on a nationally representative sample of 1,000 adults from the 2024 Cooperative Election Study, Haselswerdt asked participants to choose between competing priorities. The results showed that even small differences could sway voters, and mental health was often the issue that tipped the scale in a candidate’s favor.

The results indicate mental health issues influence political decision making in substantive ways, Haselswerdt said.

“I assumed mental health would rank below topics that typically dominate public discussion, like border security,” he said. “But that’s not what I found. I found that people consider this to be as important as other issues that get a lot more news coverage.”

Mizzou’s study comes during a time when concerns about Americans’ mental well-being remain elevated across the country. Recent polling from the National Alliance on Mental Illness shows one in six adults reporting poor mental health, largely influenced by the cost of living, personal health concerns and the demands of daily life.

Haselswerdt said the findings point to a significant and often under-recognized opportunity for policymakers to take stronger action on mental health policies.

“If there’s one takeaway, it’s that political leaders should pay more attention to addressing the deepening mental health crisis in America,” he said.

The study, “Who cares about mental health? Benchmarking the issue importance of mental health for American voters” was published in PLOS One.

The study comes amid more than one million prescription approvals and a tripling of sales of cannabinoid medications (including both cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products) in Australia over the past four years, often for the treatment of mental health and substance-use disorders.

The study’s lead author, Dr Jack Wilson at the University of Sydney’s The Matilda Centre, said the results call into question the approval of medicinal cannabis for the treatment of depression, anxiety and PTSD.

“Though our paper didn’t specifically look at this, the routine use of medicinal cannabis could be doing more harm than good by worsening mental health outcomes, for example a greater risk of psychotic symptoms and developing cannabis use disorder, and delaying the use of more effective treatments,” he said.

More than 700,000 Australians have reported using medicinal cannabis to treat over 250 different health conditions. The research found evidence to suggest that medicinal cannabis could potentially be beneficial for some conditions – such as the treatment of cannabis use disorder (otherwise known as cannabis dependency), autism, insomnia, and tics or Tourette’s syndrome.

Dr Wilson said: “But the overall quality of evidence for these other conditions, such as autism and insomnia, was low. In the absence of robust medical or counselling support, the use of medicinal cannabis in these cases are rarely justified.

“There is, however, evidence that medicinal cannabis may be beneficial in certain health conditions, such as reducing seizures associated with some forms of epilepsy, spasticity among those with multiple sclerosis, and managing certain types of pain, but our study shows the evidence for mental health disorders falls short.

“In the case of autism specifically, while the study showed some evidence medicinal cannabis could assist with a reduction in symptoms, it is worth noting that there is no one – or universal – experience of autism, so this finding should be treated with caution.”

The study found that medicinal cannabis was not effective for every type of substance-abuse disorder. While medicinal cannabis may help with cannabis dependence, it was found to increase cocaine cravings among people with cocaine-use disorder

“Similar to how methadone is used to treat opioid-use disorder, cannabis medicines may form part of an effective treatment for those with a cannabis-use disorder. When administered alongside psychological therapy, an oral formulation of cannabis was shown to reduce cannabis smoking,” Dr Wilson said.

“However, when medicinal cannabis was used to treat people with cocaine-use disorder, it increased their cravings. This means it should not be considered for this purpose and may, in fact, worsen cocaine dependence,” he said.

Researchers urge greater regulation for prescribing of medicinal cannabis 

The rapid expansion in medicinal cannabis use and prescribing rates has raised concerns among major medical bodies, including the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, about the largely unregulated growth in prescribing and the uncertainty surrounding the efficacy and safety of these products.

In response, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) initiated a review of the regulatory oversight of medicinal cannabis, with more than 500 responses published in February.

“Our study provides a comprehensive and independent assessment of the benefits and risks of cannabis medicines, which may support the TGA and clinicians to make evidence-based decisions, helping to ensure patients receive effective treatments while minimising harm from ineffective or unsafe cannabis products,” Dr Wilson said.

The systematic review and meta-analysis included results from 54 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 45-year period (1980-2025) worldwide.

Research: Wilson, J et al, ‘The efficacy and safety of cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and substance use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis’ (The Lancet Psychiatry, 2026)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(26)00015-5

The large register-based retrospective study was carried out in collaboration between the University of Eastern Finland, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and Griffith University in Australia.

As background, the authors noted that, “People with diabetes have an elevated risk of developing depression, anxiety, and suicide. GLP-1 receptor agonists are licensed to treat diabetes and obesity, but data on whether these medications alleviate or exacerbate anxiety, depression, and self-harm are mixed. We studied the risk of worsening mental illness in people already diagnosed with depression, anxiety, or both who were prescribed antidiabetic medications including GLP-1 receptor agonists.”

The investigators identified people from national Swedish electronic health registries who had received a diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder and who had used any antidiabetic medication between the years 2009 and 2022.

They compared the psychiatric effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists, individually and as a class of drugs, to non-use of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The primary outcome was worsening of mental illness, defined as a composite of psychiatric hospitalization, sick leave from work for more than 14 days for psychiatric reasons and hospitalization due to self-harm or death by suicide.

The investigators enrolled 95,490 subjects, 56,976 female and 38,514 male, with a mean age of 50.6 years.

GLP-1 receptor agonists were used by 22,480 of these subjects during the study period.

Treatment with GLP-1 medications, especially semaglutide, was associated with a reduction in sickness absence and hospital care due to psychiatric reasons. When semaglutide was used, the reduction was 42% compared with periods when GLP-1 medications were not used. For worsening depression, the risk was 44% lower when GLP-1 medications were used. And for worsening anxiety disorders it was 38% lower.

The investigators reported that hospital care and sickness absence related to substance use were 47% lower during periods of semaglutide use compared with periods without GLP-1 use.

Investigator Markku Lähteenvuo, MD, PhD Research Director, Institute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Eastern Finland, said, “Because this is a registry-based study, we cannot determine exactly why or how these medications affect mood symptoms, but the association was quite strong. It is possible that, in addition to factors such as reduced alcohol consumption, weight loss-related improvements in body image, or relief associated with better glycaemic control in diabetes, there may also be direct neurobiological mechanisms involved – for example, through changes in the functioning of the brain’s reward system.”

The research, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, established a significant and consistent association between Problematic Smartphone Use (PSU) – whereby an individual becomes behaviorally or psychologically reliant on their smartphone – and eating disorder symptom severity. Researchers argue this highlights the need for early intervention strategies specific to excessive phone use for young people displaying eating disorder symptoms.

While there has been research conducted into the negative impact that problematic internet usage, exposure to social media, and harmful online content can have on body image and body dysphoria in both clinical and non-clinical populations, none have specifically examined PSU.

Researchers identified 35 studies in which to include in this systematic review. The studies were from across the globe and provided researchers with a sample size of 52,584 participants with an average age of 17.

Their analysis of the data found that higher daily smartphone use was also related to greater food addiction symptoms, broader disordered eating behaviours like uncontrolled eating or emotional overeating, and body dissatisfaction in people with no diagnosis of an eating disorder. The association was particularly strong in those who use their phones for more than seven hours a day.

Ben Carter, Professor of Medical Statistics at King’s IoPPN and the study’s senior author said, “Smartphones have become ubiquitous in our everyday lives. It is apparent from our study that, even for people without a diagnosis of an eating disorder, the overuse of a smartphone is associated with poor body satisfaction and altered eating behaviours, and is a potential source of distress”

Dr Johanna Keeler, a Visiting Lecturer at King’s IoPPN and the study’s first author said, “Adolescence is a key stage of development as individuals evolve their sense of self by observing others. While smartphones might present an easy way for this to happen, being consistently exposed to idealised images can lead them to compare their own appearance with these “standards”, leading to poor self-esteem and appearance dissatisfaction – both risk factors for the development of an eating disorder.”

For more information, please contact Patrick O’Brien (Media Manager) on +44 020 7848 5377.

Problematic smartphone use and smartphone screen time are associated with eating disorder psychopathology in non-clinical samples: a systematic review (DOI )(Keeler, Carter et al) was published in the Journal of Internet Medical Research.

1. “Problematic Smartphone Use” is not “smartphone addiction” and should not be used interchangeably. While smartphone users can demonstrate addictive behaviours, significantly more research is required before the “addiction” moniker can be applied.

About King’s College London and the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience

King’s College London is amongst the top 35 universities in the world and 5th best in the UK (QS World University Rankings 2026), and one of England’s oldest and most prestigious universities. With an outstanding reputation for world-class teaching and cutting-edge research, King’s maintained its sixth position for ‘research power’ in the UK (2021 Research Excellence Framework).

King’s has more than 42,000 students (including more than 12,800 postgraduates) from some 190 countries worldwide, and 8,500 staff.

For nearly 200 years, King’s students and staff have used their knowledge and insight to make a positive impact on people, society and the planet. Focused on delivering positive change at home in London, across the UK and around the world, King’s is building on its history of addressing the world’s most urgent challenges head on to accelerate progress, make discoveries and pioneer innovation. Visit the website to find out more about Vision 2029, which sets out bold ambitions for the future of King’s as we look towards our 200th anniversary. World-changing ideas. Life-changing impact: kcl.ac.uk/news

In a paper, published today in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a group of experts led by Professor Samuele Cortese from the University of Southampton say there is no robust evidence that ADHD is over-diagnosed in the UK.

The new paper refutes the view that ‘nowadays everyone has ADHD’ which is gaining traction in public discourse and has been amplified by some leading politicians, as demand rises for NHS assessments and services.

Bringing together academics, clinicians, people with lived experience and carers, the group say this narrative risks misleading the public and policymakers and overshadows a more pressing concern – unmet need.

Professor Cortese said: “Rather than focusing on increases or decreases in diagnostic rates, attention should be directed toward the extent to which those with ADHD are being adequately diagnosed and treated.

“While misdiagnosis and inappropriate diagnosis do occur, the available evidence indicates that under diagnosis and under treatment remain the predominant challenges.”

When standardised diagnostic criteria are applied, the prevalence of ADHD internationally is around 5 per cent in children and 3 per cent in adults.

While prevalence has increased over time, NHS administrative data in England remains substantially below these expected levels, suggesting that many people with ADHD are living without a diagnosis and adequate support.

The group acknowledge that misdiagnosis can occur in some cases, particularly where assessments rely heavily on self-reporting or where alternative conditions are not fully considered.

Professor Tamsin Ford, Head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge, a coauthor on the paper, commented: “While many more people with ADHD are being recognised and treated, we are failing to support many more. Overdiagnosis is not a problem, but misdiagnosis may be as people are driven into the private sector by long waits; and sadly, missed diagnoses remain common.”

The researchers stress that the absence of biological diagnostic markers means that thorough, multidisciplinary clinical assessment is essential. Field trials show that when clinicians are properly trained, an ADHD diagnosis is among the most reliable for a mental health condition.

“Similar to physiological traits, such as blood pressure or weight, ADHD symptoms are distributed along a continuum,” says coauthor Professor Chris Hollis from the University of Nottingham. “But as with hypertension or obesity, there are diagnostic severity thresholds that determine health risks and what interventions should be used. Similarly, in ADHD a risk-stratified stepped-care approach may be useful.”

Professor Cortese and colleagues highlight significant pressure on UK services, with long waiting times and growing demand, especially among adults who were not diagnosed in childhood.

They point to figures showing that around 27 per cent of children and young people diagnosed with ADHD reported waiting one to two years, while 14 per cent waited two to three years.

Evidence shows that untreated ADHD is associated with serious long-term risks, while effective treatments are available, backed by strong evidence, and generally well tolerated.

“The costs of untreated ADHD are often overlooked,” says Professor Cortese. “They include increased risk of academic failure, suicidal behaviour, substance abuse, criminality, injury and death. The failure to provide treatments which have been shown to reduce these risks represents a major ethical issue that needs to be urgently addressed.”

The authors call for improved funding, workforce training and a more balanced, evidence-based conversation to ensure accurate diagnosis while expanding access to care for those who need it.

The researchers are supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Office for Life Sciences.

ADHD (over) diagnosis: fiction, fashion, and failure is published in the British Journal of Psychiatry and is available online.

Contact

Steve Williams, Media Manager, University of Southampton, press@soton.ac.uk or 023 8059 3212.

1. In 2018, the administrative prevalence was 2.5% in boys and 0.7% in girls, and 0.7% in men and 0.2% in women, respectively. Current post-pandemic administrative prevalence data are unavailable.
2. Figures on wait list times come from an online survey of 7,340 people, conducted by the House of Commons Petitions Committee between 2021 and 2022.
3. ADHD (over) diagnosis: fiction, fashion, and failure is published in the British Journal of Psychiatry here:ADHD (over) diagnosis: fiction, fashion and failure | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core
4. For interviews, please contact press@soton.ac.uk or 023 8059 3212.

The findings were published on Feb. 23, 2026 in CANCER, a journal of the American Cancer Society.

“Over the past several years, we’ve had an increasing appreciation for the important relationship between cancer, its treatment, and mental health,” said lead author Julian Hong, MD, MS, of the University of California, San Francisco. “This study reproduces our prior work by leveraging the shared experience across the University of California system, reinforcing a relationship between mental health conditions and mortality for patients with cancer and highlighting the need to prioritize and manage mental health.”

The researchers used The University of California Data Discovery Platform, in which data on all patients at University of California–affiliated hospitals are recorded.

They identified adult patients with a cancer diagnosis and no documented mental health disorder prior to cancer diagnosis between 2013 and 2023.

Among 371,189 patients, 39,687 (10.6%) developed a mental health disorder within the first year after cancer diagnosis.

After adjusting the data for factors which might affect the primary outcome, the researchers reported that a mental health disorder diagnosis was linked to a 51% higher risk of all-cause death in the initial 1–3 years after cancer diagnosis. This elevated risk decreased to a 17% higher risk after 3–5 years. Then it disappeared.

The authors concluded, “Patients with cancer who experience a mental health condition are at an increased risk of all-cause mortality. This reinforces and emphasizes existing recommendations for prompt screening and management of distress and mental health following a cancer diagnosis.

An interdisciplinary George Mason University team led by Farrokh Alemi, an expert in machine-learning and AI, compared how effective recommendations were from AI-guided tools/models that knew the patient’s race and factors uniquely relevant to African American patients against tools/models that didn’t. The team found that recommendations based on “race-blind” AI models—those that do not know the patient’s race—tended to recommend medications that were less effective for African American patients.

“Anti-depressant recommendations from race-specific models outperformed recommendations from general models across all antidepressants studied. The findings highlight why clinical AI, like clinical practice, shouldn’t rely solely on general-population patterns when prescribing for African Americans with depression,” said Vladimir Cardenas, master of science in health informatics ’24.

Why This Matters

“If AI systems are not trained on correct information, including patient demographic information, such as race, it will give incorrect or inaccurate information, which can result in people ending up with less effective medications,” said Alemi.

Alemi and his co-researchers observed that when advising patients on options for treating depression. “AI systems could be biased against African Americans, recommending antidepressants that work for general, mostly White, patients but not for African Americans,” said Alemi.

The Details

Researchers looked at bias in an AI system meant to guide treatment for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)—and whether race-blind models miss important signals for African American patients. The AI system used medical history—including whether a patient completed the full dose of the antidepressant—to recommend a medication. Researchers coded whether a patient discontinued the use of the antidepressant as a measure of AI-guided treatment failure or success.

The study underscores that race is not a biological determinant of depression or treatment response, emphasizing the social and environmental factors that affect depression. Some of these factors more common among African American patients may be poverty, low education, exposure to violence, discrimination, cultural stigma and negative attitudes toward mental health, and low access to mental health treatment resources.

“These data highlight the need to tailor antidepressants to fit the patient’s individual medical history. Clinicians do this, and, if done right, an AI system can help clinicians do so as well,” said Cardenas.

“I hope that our approach will help inform AI in health care design and governance. This way we can truly pursue AI that improves the health of all,” said Cardenas.

The research team included Kevin Lybarger, assistant professor in the College of Engineering and Computing, along with master of science in health informatics graduates Cardenas, Maria Kurian, and Rachel Christine King; and Niloofar Ramezani from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Bias in AI-guided management of patients with major depressive disorders was published in the Journal of Health Equity in January 2026. The study was supported by the Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Consortium to Advance Health Equity and Researcher Diversity. Research was partially funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award.

Key Takeaways

• AI systems for antidepressant guidance may be less effective for African American patients because models use data from general, primarily White, populations.
• Race-specific models were more accurate in predicting African Americans’ responses to medications across all antidepressants studied.
• Clinical AI treating mental health shouldn’t rely solely on general population data when prescribing antidepressants for African Americans with depression.

For the study, researchers looked at serotonergic antidepressants, which treat anxiety and depression by increasing serotonin activity in the brain. These included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs).

“Concerns have previously been raised that serotonergic antidepressants might increase the risk of bleeding in the brain or complicate early recovery after traumatic brain injury,” said study author Jussi P. Posti, MD, PhD, of the University of Turku in Finland. “However, our study found no evidence to support those concerns.”

The study included 54,876 people in Finland who were 16 or older when hospitalized with a TBI. A total of 14% used serotonergic antidepressants at the time of the TBI.

Researchers reviewed national prescription records for preinjury antidepressant use and medical records to determine how many people died within a month, whether they needed emergency brain surgery, and how long they stayed in the hospital.

A total of 4,105 people died within a month. This included 7.6% of those taking antidepressants and 7.5% of people who did not.

After adjusting for factors such as age, sex and other health conditions, researchers found people taking antidepressants before injury were no more likely to die within a month than those not taking them.

Antidepressant users were slightly less likely to require emergency brain surgery to relieve pressure or bleeding in the brain and prevent further damage.

Of the total participants, 6.8% of the antidepressant users and 8.6% of those who did not use antidepressants needed emergency brain surgery. After adjustments, antidepressant users had an 11% lower risk.

The amount of time in the hospital was the same for both groups.

“These findings provide reassurance for people who take antidepressants that antidepressant use does not appear to worsen early recovery after traumatic brain injury,” said Posti. “Future studies should examine whether these results hold true for long-term recovery and across different health care settings.”

A limitation of the study was that it was conducted only at hospitals and health care centers in Finland, so results may vary in other areas.

The study was supported by the Finnish government, the Paulo Foundation, Paavo Nurmi Foundation, Research Council of Finland, Sigrid Jusélius Foundation and Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research.

Discover more about traumatic brain injury at Brain & Life^®, from the American Academy of Neurology. This resource offers a website, podcast, and books that connect patients, caregivers and anyone interested in brain health with the most trusted information, straight from the world’s leading experts in brain health. Follow Brain & Life^® on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

The American Academy of Neurology is the leading voice in brain health. As the world’s largest association of neurologists and neuroscience professionals with more than 40,000 members, the AAN provides access to the latest news, science and research affecting neurology for patients, caregivers, physicians and professionals alike. The AAN’s mission is to enhance member career fulfillment and promote brain health for all. A neurologist is a doctor who specializes in the diagnosis, care and treatment of brain, spinal cord and nervous system diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, concussion, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, headache and migraine.

Explore the latest in neurological disease and brain health, from the minds at the AAN at AAN.com or find us on Facebook, X, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube.