AIImpactLab
9 impact clustersWork & marketsCognition & learningTechnical failuresPrivacySecurityEnvironmentLaw & informationSocial good & healthSystemic risk
Search the evidence

Find the signal.

Search titles, impact clusters, countries, organizations and the full text of every analysis.

2 stories found

Medical journal editors draw a red boundary between an artificial intelligence writing system and clinical images, references, opinions, and peer-review files.
Law & informationGlobal+3 clusters01

JAMA draws a hard line on AI authorship to protect medicine from fabricated authority

JAMA has updated its guidance for author use of artificial intelligence in medical publishing. AI may assist with research and manuscript preparation when the use is fully described and authors verify and accept responsibility for the content. The journal now advises authors not to use AI to generate or format references because realistic-looking citations may not exist. It also does not permit AI drafting of opinion manuscripts, letters, or online comments, and bars AI-created or manipulated clinical images, illustrations, video, and audio unless they are part of a formal research design or method that is fully disclosed. Peer-review use remains prohibited because submitting confidential manuscripts to external models can violate confidentiality. The policy is not an anti-AI ban. It draws responsibility lines where fluency, synthetic evidence, or automated authority could corrupt a clinical and scholarly record that patients and professionals rely on.

5 min
A student sits with a glowing chatbot phone while two separate paths point toward emotional distress and a warm doorway to human support, emphasizing association rather than causation.
Cognition & learningCanada+4 clusters02

One in five students used generative AI for emotional support in a large Ontario study

A JAMA Pediatrics cross-sectional study of 39,761 Ontario students found that 21.1 percent used generative AI for emotional support or advice. Students reporting this affective use had higher emotional-problem scores and were more likely to cross a clinical symptom threshold than students who did not. The unadjusted prevalence was 57.7 percent versus 29.2 percent, and an association remained after adjustment for loneliness, mattering, demographic factors, and school-related AI use. The result is important and easy to overstate. A cross-sectional design cannot show that AI caused distress. Children already experiencing emotional problems may be more likely to seek a private, always-available chatbot, and both directions may operate together. The authors frame affective AI use as a distinct marker of psychological distress rather than a diagnosis or causal mechanism. That distinction should guide action. Clinicians and families should ask about chatbot use without shaming children, schools should distinguish functional assistance from emotional refuge, and products should provide age-appropriate privacy protections, clear limits, and visible escalation to qualified human support. The signal is not that every emotional conversation with AI is harmful. It is that a child turning to an algorithm may be telling adults something they have not heard elsewhere.

6 min