Back

Characterizing artificial intelligence (AI) psychosis in a large academic medical setting: evidence of the new clinical phenomenon and the vulnerability of those in early phases of psychosis

Bergson, Z.; Vassall, S. G.; Wright, A.; McCoy, A. B.; Schafer, K. M.; Achee, M. C.; Sheffield, J. M.

2026-06-08 public and global health
10.64898/2026.06.04.26354939 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Concerns about "AI psychosis" have swirled in the media since ChatGPT's release, but few systematic analyses exist. We therefore conducted an electronic health record (EHR) analysis to identify the frequency, clinical characteristics, and quality of AI interactions in patients experiencing psychosis treated in a medical center. Methods: AI keywords (e.g., ChatGPT, AI) were used to search Vanderbilt University Medical Center's EHR from 12/1/2022-4/1/2026. Records were discarded if they were not AI-related or if the primary diagnosis did not include psychosis. Three raters read notes to determine if a patient was experiencing AI psychosis and classified the interactions using 4 a-priori categories (Catalyst, Amplifier, Co-Author, Object) formulated to explain how AI-related negative outcomes emerge. Findings: 73 patients met our criteria. 28 patients were rated as experiencing AI psychosis, 17 had neutral interactions, and 28 expressed delusional content related to AI without documented evidence of conversational AI use. ChatGPT was the matching keyword for 53.6% patients experiencing AI psychosis. The majority of AI psychosis cases were documented after ChatGPT's "4o" model was released in May 2024. Notably, the AI Psychosis group had significantly more patients experiencing a first psychotic episode (60.7%) compared to the other two groups. Amplifier was the most common (64.3%) qualitative rating in the AI Psychosis group. Interpretation: "AI psychosis" is an infrequent but real phenomenon observed in clinical practice. Most affected patients were experiencing their first psychotic episode and presented with AI psychosis following the release of the more sycophantic GPT-4o. Among the affected patients, AI most often exacerbated an existing condition by reinforcing distorted ideas.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.1%
2
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
3
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
9.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.2%
5
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
6
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
7
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
9
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
10
Schizophrenia Bulletin
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.7%
12
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
13
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
14
Schizophrenia Research
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
16
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
17
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
18
Schizophrenia
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
20
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
22
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
23
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%