From Skepticism to Support: Addressing Clinician and Patient Concerns About <scp>AI</scp> in Eating Disorder Care

While Linardon and colleagues reveal cautious attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI) in eating disorder care, our recent empirical evidence suggests that specialized, expert-developed AI interventions can effectively support individuals at risk for eating disorders. However, unlike specialized AI, general-purpose AI (systems designed for broad tasks without specific clinical fine-tuning) often produces harmful content for eating disorder-related prompts, highlighting the need for specialized systems with strong ethical guardrails. Responsible AI integration requires balancing legitimate clinical concerns with evidence-based implementation, positioning AI not as a replacement for human providers, but as a complementary tool to expand access to quality care for the many individuals unable to receive traditional treatment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Published
2025-05-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24457
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.31

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From Skepticism to Support: Addressing Clinician and Patient Concerns About AI in Eating Disorder Care

Ellen E. Fitzsimmons‐Craft, Elizabeth W. Lampe, Nicholas C. Jacobson
1 citations
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Eating Disorders and Behaviors
2.31
article

From Skepticism to Support: Addressing Clinician and Patient Concerns About AI in Eating Disorder Care

Ellen E. Fitzsimmons‐Craft, Elizabeth W. Lampe, Nicholas C. Jacobson
article en
1 citations

Abstract

While Linardon and colleagues reveal cautious attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI) in eating disorder care, our recent empirical evidence suggests that specialized, expert-developed AI interventions can effectively support individuals at risk for eating disorders. However, unlike specialized AI, general-purpose AI (systems designed for broad tasks without specific clinical fine-tuning) often produces harmful content for eating disorder-related prompts, highlighting the need for specialized systems with strong ethical guardrails. Responsible AI integration requires balancing legitimate clinical concerns with evidence-based implementation, positioning AI not as a replacement for human providers, but as a complementary tool to expand access to quality care for the many individuals unable to receive traditional treatment.

International Journal of Eating DisordersVol. 58(8)
Dartmouth College (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US)
National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Eating Disorders and Behaviors
2.31
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

From Skepticism to Support: Addressing Clinician and Patient Concerns About <scp>AI</scp> in Eating Disorder Care — Ellen E. Fitzsimmons‐Craft, Elizabeth W. Lampe, et al. · International Journal of Eating Disorders (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS