Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to map and visualize global research trends related to bipolar disorder (BD), with a focus on artificial intelligence (AI)-driven diagnosis and digital psychiatry from 2000 to 2025.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was conducted using publications retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, covering the period from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2025. All data were extracted from databases at the time of search in mid-2025, and no future or projected data were included. After deduplication and data cleaning, 4,753 relevant articles were included. VOSviewer was utilized to perform co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and bibliographic coupling network analysis. Descriptive statistics, including annual publication trends, authorship patterns, and institutional contributions, were analyzed using Excel Pivot Tables.

Results

Scientific output in this field has grown significantly since 2015, with the United States (n=1850), United Kingdom (n=750), and China (n=620) leading in publications. Harvard University emerged as the most prolific institution. Author collaboration networks identified Eduard Vieta and Lars Vedel Kessing as key contributors. Keyword analysis revealed four dominant clusters: AI/machine learning, clinical diagnosis and biomarkers, cognitive function and quality of life, and digital interventions via smartphones and wearables. Journals such as Journal of Affective Disorders and JMIR Mental Health are central to recent literature. However, global collaboration remains limited, and the integration of digital phenotyping with biological data is still in early stages.

Conclusion

Research in BD is shifting toward AI-enabled and digital mental health approaches. Future studies should enhance interdisciplinary collaboration, focus on multimodal data integration, and promote equitable global access to digital psychiatric tools.

Keywords

bipolar disorder artificial intelligence machine learning bibliometrics telepsychiatry cooperative behavior

Introduction

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a severe, chronic, and recurrent mental health condition characterized by alternating episodes of mania and depression, leading to substantial impairments in functioning and quality of life.^1,2 Globally, BD imposes a significant burden on patients, families, and healthcare systems due to its high prevalence, frequent relapses, and associated comorbidities.^3,4 The neurobiological underpinnings of BD are complex and involve genetic, neurochemical, and structural brain alterations, making its management challenging.^5,6

In recent years, digital health technologies have emerged as promising tools in psychiatric care, offering novel ways to monitor, assess, and manage BD remotely and in real time.^7–9 In this study, “digital psychiatry” refers to the integration of digital technologies such as mobile health applications, wearable devices, and telepsychiatry tools for the assessment, treatment, and management of psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder. “Artificial intelligence” (AI), on the other hand, refers to the use of machine learning algorithms and data-driven models to predict, diagnose, and optimize treatment strategies based on patient data. While these two fields overlap, they are distinct: not all digital psychiatry studies necessarily involve AI-driven approaches, and AI can be applied to a range of mental health disorders beyond those studied in digital psychiatry. Understanding this distinction is critical for interpreting the findings of this review, as it provides clarity on the scope and focus of the research covered. Digital phenotyping, defined as the moment-by-moment quantification of the individual-level human phenotype using data from personal digital devices, provides new insights into behavioral patterns relevant to BD.^10–12 Wearable devices and smartphone-based applications can track physiological signals, sleep, circadian rhythms, social interaction, and mood states, contributing to more precise diagnosis and personalized treatment plans.^3,13–16 For instance, web-based cognitive assessments⁶ and acoustic or facial feature analysis using machine learning algorithms have shown potential in psychiatric evaluations.^8,17

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the landscape of mental health care by enabling advanced data processing, pattern recognition, and predictive analytics.^18–20 Machine learning (ML) techniques are increasingly applied to detect mood shifts, predict relapses, and assist in differential diagnoses, improving both accuracy and timeliness in BD management.^21–23 Systems like MONARCA and MoodSensing exemplify AI-integrated mobile health interventions designed specifically for BD.^19,23–26 These technologies support self-monitoring, reduce symptom fluctuations, and enhance patient engagement.^3,11,27

Despite these advancements, several gaps and challenges remain. Issues such as user adherence to digital interventions,^28–31 privacy concerns,³² limited integration of AI with clinical endophenotypes,³ and the need for tailored solutions across different illness stages⁷ are critical barriers to full-scale implementation.^33,34 Furthermore, while AI has been applied to related disorders such as depression and anxiety,³⁵ its specific role in BD requires further investigation.^21,36 Current literature highlights the importance of real-time monitoring,^37,38 social connectivity analysis,³⁹ and multimodal data integration using smartphones and wearable devices.^10,40 However, there is a need for comprehensive mapping of how AI technologies have been adopted in BD care, particularly in diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and prediction of disease trajectories.^41–45

Additionally, the potential of AI in managing comorbid conditions such as borderline personality disorder alongside BD is gaining attention, with ML models showing promising diagnostic capabilities.^46,47 The integration of actigraphy for rest-activity cycle disruptions,⁴⁸ peer-supported interventions for older adults,⁴⁹ and telemedicine solutions for rural populations⁵⁰ further broaden the scope of digital health applications in BD. Nevertheless, concerns about ethical considerations, data security, and algorithmic biases continue to fuel ongoing debates.^33,51

Given this evolving landscape, bibliometric analyses offer a powerful approach to systematically evaluate research trends, identify knowledge gaps, and inform future directions.^35,51–53 Bibliometric studies in AI and mental health reveal exponential growth in publications, particularly in machine learning and digital health interventions.^52,53 However, a focused analysis on AI applications in BD, encompassing diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment, is still lacking.

This study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric and visualized analysis of the use of artificial intelligence and digital technologies in bipolar disorder, mapping global research trends, collaborations, and technological advances. By synthesizing existing knowledge and identifying research gaps, this work provides actionable insights for clinicians, researchers, and technology developers in the field of digital psychiatry and AI-based mental health care.

Method

This bibliometric analysis was conducted using three major academic databases: ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. The search period covered publications from January 2000 to June 2025, ensuring the inclusion of relevant scientific literature over the past two and a half decades.

The search strategy was developed based on predefined keywords related to bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence. The full search strings used in each database were as follows:

Web of Science: TS = (“bipolar disorder” AND (“digital psychiatry” OR telepsychiatry OR “digital health” OR “mobile health” OR smartphone) AND (“artificial intelligence” OR “machine learning” OR “AI-based diagnosis”)).

Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“bipolar disorder” AND (“digital psychiatry” OR telepsychiatry OR “digital health” OR mHealth OR smartphone) AND (“artificial intelligence” OR “machine learning”)).

PubMed: (“Bipolar Disorder”[MeSH] AND (“Telemedicine”[MeSH] OR “digital health” OR “mobile health” OR smartphone) AND (“Artificial Intelligence”[MeSH] OR “Machine Learning”)).

These refined search strings were designed to maximize both sensitivity and specificity across databases and ensure reproducibility.

In VOSviewer, the following parameters were used:

• Minimum occurrences of keywords: 5

• Threshold for co-authorship links: 2

• Minimum citation count for bibliographic coupling: 20.

To reduce potential bias and increase the accuracy of data collection, the search strategy was iteratively refined. Two independent researchers reviewed and validated the search process to confirm the consistency and reproducibility of the methodology.

During data extraction, an evidence hierarchy was applied to contextualize the strength of the mapped literature. Studies were categorized into randomized controlled trials, prospective or well-designed observational studies, and exploratory or methodological contributions. This hierarchy served as a pragmatic indicator of evidence maturity rather than a formal quality appraisal, as risk-of-bias assessment is not typically feasible within large-scale bibliometric analyses. The approach allowed differentiation between publication growth and methodological advancement across the field.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Publications were included if they explicitly addressed bipolar disorder within the broader domains of digital psychiatry, artificial intelligence, or technology-enhanced mental health research. Eligible studies encompassed research on telepsychiatry, mobile health applications, digital biomarkers, digital phenotyping, passive sensing technologies, AI-based diagnostic or predictive models, machine-learning–driven analytics, and digital platforms designed for clinical management, monitoring, or relapse prediction in bipolar disorder.

To strengthen the methodological rigor of the review, each publication was screened not only for topical relevance but also for extractable study design information.

Studies were therefore included only when metadata allowed classification into a recognizable design category (e.g., randomized controlled trials, non-randomized interventions, observational studies, cross-sectional studies, case–control studies, methodological/algorithmic papers, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, or case reports). Publications lacking sufficient information to determine study design were retained for bibliometric mapping but flagged for limited interpretability in the level-of-evidence assessment.

To enable differentiation between publication volume and evidence robustness, an evidence hierarchy framework was applied based on study design classification. Randomized controlled trials were considered high-level evidence, prospective and well-designed observational studies were categorized as moderate-level evidence, while retrospective analyses, methodological or algorithm-development studies, bibliometric investigations, narrative reviews, and case reports were classified as low-level evidence. This hierarchy was used as a pragmatic proxy for methodological maturity across the literature rather than as a formal risk-of-bias or quality appraisal. Although this hierarchy does not replace formal risk-of-bias assessment or guideline-based evidence grading (e.g., GRADE), it provides a structured approximation of methodological maturity within large-scale bibliometric datasets where individual study appraisal is not feasible.

Studies were excluded if they did not relate to the core research themes, represented duplicate entries, or consisted of non-research material such as conference abstracts, editorial pieces, letters, commentaries, or general news items. Records with incomplete bibliographic metadata, such as missing author information, institutional affiliation, reference lists, or journal identifiers, were removed when these gaps prevented reliable integration into citation, co-authorship, or co-occurrence networks.

Hyper-authorship publications (i.e.,records with more than 100 authors) were excluded to avoid artificial inflation of collaboration metrics and distortion of co-authorship network structures.

(i.e.,records with more than 100 authors) were excluded. These records typically originate from large scientific consortia, particularly in genetics, neuroimaging, or multi-site clinical trials, and their inclusion can artificially inflate collaboration metrics and distort co-authorship network structures. Their exclusion reduces the risk of inflated degree centrality and improves the interpretability of typical collaboration patterns within the field. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that removing such records may underrepresent the contribution of large international consortia to the development of digital mental health research.

All retrieved records underwent a rigorous deduplication and data-cleaning procedure, including harmonization of author names, standardization of institutional affiliations, journal title unification, and correction of metadata inconsistencies. This step was essential to minimize fragmentation in citation networks, improve the accuracy of bibliometric clustering, and avoid false inflation of node counts due to disambiguation errors.

Finally, Because early-period records (2000–2010) often contained sparse metadata, additional filtering was applied to minimize temporal noise and reduce statistical volatility in early-year trend analyses.

Data analysis and bibliometric tools

The bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOSviewer (version 1.6.20), a specialized software for constructing and visualizing scientific networks. Multiple mapping approaches were applied to examine the structure of the research field. Keyword co-occurrence analysis was performed to identify the frequency and co-occurrence of terms, revealing conceptual linkages and emerging research themes. Density visualization maps were generated to highlight thematic concentrations, illustrating areas with high levels of scientific output in bipolar disorder and digital psychiatry.

Co-authorship networks were constructed at both the author and country levels to assess collaborative patterns and international research partnerships. Additionally, organizational collaboration maps were generated to evaluate institutional affiliations and partnerships within the field.

Bibliographic coupling analysis was conducted at two levels. At the article level, this method assessed shared references among individual publications to identify clusters of closely related studies. At the journal level, bibliographic coupling was used to map connections between academic journals based on common citations, providing insights into interdisciplinary linkages and journal influence within the research ecosystem.

Descriptive statistical analysis

In addition to network analysis, descriptive statistical analyses were carried out using Pivot Tables in Microsoft Excel. These analyses included the evaluation of publication distributions by author, country, journal, and year of publication. The annual trend of scientific production was also assessed to capture the temporal dynamics and growth trajectory of research related to bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and AI integration.

Content analysis

To complement the quantitative findings, a manual content analysis of key publications within the identified clusters was conducted. This qualitative step provided a deeper understanding of the research landscape, allowing for a nuanced interpretation of the bibliometric patterns. The manual review of core articles helped contextualize the thematic developments and emerging trends revealed through the bibliometric mapping.

Results

A total of 4,753 articles related to bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed for the period 2000 to 2025. The collected data were analyzed using VOSviewer (version 1.6.20). This software enabled a comprehensive analysis of the scientific structure, including keyword co-occurrence mapping, author and country collaboration networks, and bibliographic coupling.

Scientific collaboration analysis

Country collaboration network

As shown in Table 1, the United States, with 1851 publications, ranks first in scientific output related to bipolar disorder, digital technologies, and artificial intelligence. The United Kingdom and China, with 749 and 622 publications respectively, occupy the second and third positions. Other European countries, including Germany, Spain, Italy, France, and Denmark, also have a significant share in this field. Canada and Australia are likewise among the top ten countries in terms of the number of publications.

Table 1.

Top 10 countries in scientific output on bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

Rank	Country	Number of publications
1	United States	1851
2	United Kingdom	749
3	China	622
4	Germany	578
5	Canada	542
6	Australia	501
7	Spain	459
8	Italy	432
9	France	409
10	Denmark	391

As shown in Figure 1, the annual number of publications increased steadily from 2000 onward, with a marked acceleration after 2015. To complement these descriptive trends, Table 2 provides a breakdown of study design types across the full dataset. Methodological and AI/ML model development studies represent the largest proportion, followed by observational and review articles, while RCTs account for a comparatively small share of the evidence base. To illustrate how these study designs evolved over time, Figure 1 presents their temporal distribution using a three-year centered moving average. The figure shows rapid growth in methodological and observational studies after 2015, whereas RCTs increased more gradually and remained limited throughout the period. These patterns indicate that the expansion of the field has been driven primarily by technology-focused and data-driven research, with slower development of high-level clinical trial evidence. When interpreted using the applied evidence hierarchy, the majority of publications correspond to low- and moderate-level evidence categories, whereas high-level evidence remains comparatively limited. Based on the applied evidence hierarchy, 50.3% of publications were categorized as low-level evidence, primarily including methodological studies, review articles, and case reports. Moderate-level evidence, mainly observational studies, accounted for 37.8% of the literature, whereas randomized controlled trials representing high-level evidence constituted only 11.9% of the included publications. These findings indicate that although publication volume has expanded substantially, the growth of higher-level clinical evidence has progressed more slowly. This imbalance has important methodological implications. The predominance of exploratory and technology-development studies suggests that bibliometric growth should be interpreted as an indicator of innovation activity rather than evidence consolidation. Consequently, the field may be advancing conceptually faster than it is progressing in clinically validated implementation, highlighting the need for longitudinal trials, real-world validation studies, and stronger translational research pathways. Consequently, bibliometric growth in this field should be interpreted primarily as an expansion of exploratory innovation capacity rather than definitive evidence consolidation.

Figure 1.

Temporal trend of study designs (2000–2025).

Table 2.

Study design distribution (2000–2025).

Study design category	N (total)	%	First year observed	Most recent year observed
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)	564	11.87%	2001	2025
Observational studies	1,798	37.83%	2000	2025
Review articles (systematic + narrative)	981	20.64%	2001	2025
Methodological/AI–ML model development	1,390	29.24%	2005	2025
Case reports/case series	20	0.42%	2002	2019
Total	4,753	100.00%	—	—

As shown in Figure 2, the scientific collaboration network among countries. In this network, the United States is positioned at the center and forms the largest node, reflecting both the highest level of scientific output and the broadest scope of international collaborations. Following the United States, countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy, France, and Denmark play prominent roles in international scientific collaboration within this field.

Figure 2.

Country collaboration network based on article co-authorship.

The growth trend in countries’ contributions indicates that during the period from 2000 to 2009, the primary focus of scientific production and collaboration was concentrated in North America and Western Europe. From 2010 to 2019, the share of Asian countries, particularly China and South Korea, increased significantly. In the period from 2020 to 2025, the collaboration network expanded further; however, developed countries, especially the United States and European nations, still account for the majority of scientific production and collaboration.

On the other hand, the scientific gap between different regions of the world remains evident. Countries in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Latin America are positioned at the margins of this network and exhibit limited levels of international collaboration. This underscores the need for policy development and strategic planning to enhance global scientific collaboration and reduce inequalities in knowledge production.

Organizational collaboration network

As shown in Table 3, based on the extracted data, Harvard University ranks first in scientific output related to bipolar disorder and digital technologies, with 321 publications. Following Harvard, Stanford University, the University of California System, and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in the United States occupy the second to fourth positions, respectively. Outside of the United States, universities such as the University of Toronto in Canada, the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, King’s College London, the University of Oxford, and the University of Melbourne are among the most prominent academic centers actively engaged in this research area.

Table 3.

Top 10 institutions and universities in scientific output on bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

Rank	Institution/University	Number of publications
1	Harvard University	321
2	Stanford University	268
3	University of California System	252
4	National Institute of Mental Health	239
5	University of Toronto	218
6	University of Copenhagen	202
7	King’s College London	193
8	University of Oxford	179
9	University of Melbourne	172
10	Dalhousie University	158

As shown in Figure 3, the organizational and institutional collaboration network in the field of bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence. In this network, Harvard University and Stanford University are positioned at the center of the red cluster, indicating their pivotal role in scientific collaboration. The University of California campuses and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) are also key institutions within this cluster.

Figure 3.

Organizational collaboration network based on article co-authorship.

The green cluster includes Canadian universities and selected European centers such as the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia, and McMaster University, reflecting a concentration of regional collaborations in North America.

The blue cluster is composed of European universities, including King’s College London, the University of Oxford, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Barcelona, and the Karolinska Institute, which actively collaborate with each other.

The yellow cluster highlights the roles of the University of Copenhagen, the Technical University of Denmark, and Rigshospitalet, all of which serve as key centers with a significant focus on Europe.

A comprehensive review of the network reveals that although scientific collaboration in this field is partly international, the main focus remains on a few well-established institutions. The majority of scientific output and collaborative networks are concentrated among leading academic institutions in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. This pattern indicates that the global research landscape in this domain is still heavily influenced by the activities of a limited number of major centers and has not yet achieved full geographical dispersion.

Author collaboration network

As shown in Table 4, Eduard Vieta, with 151 publications, is the most prolific and highly cited author in the field of bipolar disorder and digital technologies. He is followed by Lars Vedel Kessing and Maj Vinberg, who rank second and third, both of whom are recognized as prominent European researchers in this area. Other key authors include Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei, Michael Bauer, Mauricio Tohen, John Torous, and Michael Berk, all of whom have played central roles in advancing research and building scientific collaboration networks in this domain.

Table 4.

Top 10 authors by number of publications in bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

Rank	Author	Number of publications
1	Eduard Vieta	151
2	Lars Vedel Kessing	138
3	Maj Vinberg	130
4	Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei	121
5	Michael Bauer	112
6	Mauricio Tohen	103
7	John Torous	94
8	Michael Berk	91
9	Bo Cao	84
10	Kamilla Woznica Miskowiak	79

As shown in Figure 4, the collaboration network among authors. This map is based on article co-authorship and reveals multiple scientific collaboration clusters. The largest cluster belongs to the research group led by Eduard Vieta and Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei, who are located at the center of the network and have established extensive collaborations with other researchers.

Figure 4.

Author collaboration network.

The large blue cluster includes Lars Vedel Kessing and Maj Vinberg, reflecting a tightly knit collaboration group focused primarily on research activities in Northern Europe and Scandinavia.

The green cluster primarily consists of John Torous and his collaborators, who are actively engaged in the field of digital health and integrative psychiatry and maintain broad collaborations with other authors.

Additional clusters include those led by Michael Bauer, Mauricio Tohen, and Michael Berk, who mainly focus on the treatment and management of bipolar disorder.

The collaboration pattern indicates that localized, cohesive research clusters are predominant, although some international collaborations have also emerged. For instance, there are visible collaborative links between European and American researchers in certain clusters; however, most connections remain intra-cluster and regional. This pattern highlights the specialized convergence within specific research teams and the continuity of long-term collaborations over time.

Citation analysis

Citation mapping of articles

Citation analysis is one of the principal methods in bibliometric studies and plays a critical role in identifying influential articles, exploring scientific trajectories, and mapping knowledge networks. In this study, articles published in the fields of bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence from 2000 to 2025 were analyzed from a citation perspective. The focus of this analysis was to identify key articles and the dominant thematic clusters within the scientific literature.

As shown in Table 5, the article by Torous (2016), with 682 citations, is recognized as the most influential work in the area of digital health and bipolar disorder psychiatry. This study, focusing on the capabilities of smart technologies in patient monitoring, has played a pivotal role in advancing mobile health (mHealth)-based approaches. The article by Phillips (2013), with 619 citations, is another seminal work that examines biomarkers and brain imaging for the diagnosis of bipolar disorder and is considered a key reference in the field of clinical neurophysiology. Similarly, Anticevic (2013), with 591 citations, explored brain network analysis using artificial intelligence and has become an important reference in the field of computational neuroscience.

Table 5.

Top 10 most cited articles in bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

Rank	Author (Year)	Number of citations
1	Torous (2016)	682
2	Phillips (2013)	619
3	Anticevic (2013)	591
4	Price (2011)	568
5	Faurholt-Jepsen (2015b)	543
6	Orrù (2012)	508
7	Low (2015)	502
8	Naslund (2015)	491
9	Grist (2017)	459
10	Kim (2020)	448

The study by Price (2011) is regarded as a foundational article in the area of neuroimaging for mood disorders, focusing on brain structures associated with mood fluctuations. The paper by Faurholt-Jepsen (2015b) is one of the first studies to implement daily monitoring of patients using smart applications, providing a model for digital interventions in the management of bipolar disorder. The work of Orrù (2012), focusing on machine learning models for psychiatric disorder classification, has become one of the most frequently cited references in this domain and has been widely referenced in subsequent research.

As shown in Figure 5, the provides a visual representation of the citation network of the analyzed articles. In this network, each node represents an article, and the size of the node corresponds to the number of citations it has received. Articles with higher citation counts are depicted with larger nodes. The lines between nodes represent citation relationships, and clusters are distinguished by different colors, indicating various thematic areas within this field of study.

Figure 5.

Citation network map of articles related to bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

The red cluster in this map primarily includes studies related to digital interventions, self-monitoring, and mobile health. Articles by Torous (2016) and Naslund (2015) are at the center of this cluster, focusing on the use of digital tools for monitoring and treating patients with bipolar disorder. These works are foundational in integrating mobile technologies into psychiatric care.

The blue cluster consists of articles focused on neurophysiology and brain imaging. At the center of this cluster is Phillips (2013), regarded as one of the most significant studies in biomarker identification through neuroimaging.

The green cluster is dedicated to articles that emphasize the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the diagnosis of mood disorders. The works of Anticevic (2013) and Orrù (2012) are central to this cluster, playing a key role in introducing machine learning algorithms into psychiatric research.

In addition to these main clusters, several smaller clusters are also observable, primarily consisting of earlier studies on traditional psychiatric treatments. These smaller groups account for a lesser share of total citations and are mainly focused on classical topics in psychiatry.

A temporal citation analysis reveals that prior to 2015, research primarily focused on neurophysiology and brain imaging, with articles such as Phillips (2013) and Price (2011) receiving the highest number of citations during this period. However, from 2015 onwards, coinciding with advances in smart technologies, the research focus shifted toward digital interventions and intelligent health solutions. Articles like Torous (2016) and Low (2015), which concentrate on digital monitoring and AI-based diagnosis, have received the most citations in the 2020s. This shift reflects a transition in the field from traditional models toward novel technological approaches in diagnosis and treatment.

Overall, the findings of the citation analysis indicate that the research trajectory in bipolar disorder and mental health has shifted from classical clinical interventions and biomarker imaging toward the use of digital technologies, mobile-based interventions, and artificial intelligence algorithms. This trend reflects a conceptual transformation in the field of digital psychiatry, aligning with the evolving needs of modern healthcare systems, which are increasingly moving toward data-driven and personalized care models.

Thematic and conceptual structure analysis

Keyword co-occurrence mapping

Keyword co-occurrence analysis is one of the core approaches in bibliometric studies, enabling the identification of a field’s conceptual structure, thematic trends, and scientific orientations. In this study, the keywords of articles related to bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence published between 2000 and 2025 were extracted and analyzed. This process led to the construction of a conceptual map based on keyword co-occurrence, effectively illustrating the evolution of concepts in this field.

As shown in Table 6, Bipolar disorder, with 1252 occurrences, is the most frequently mentioned keyword, highlighting the core focus of the field. Terms such as Schizophrenia and Depression rank next due to their clinical overlap with bipolar disorder. The presence of ‘Schizophrenia’ as one of the most frequently occurring keywords in the analysis reflects the growing intersection of research themes between bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This overlap can be attributed to the shared neurobiological mechanisms between the two conditions and their frequent co-occurrence in clinical settings. Both disorders are often studied in the context of psychotic disorders, leading to their concurrent appearance in research. The rising prominence of schizophrenia-related terms may also suggest increasing recognition of the similarities in their pathophysiology and treatment approaches. Future studies could further explore these shared aspects, especially in terms of diagnostic criteria, treatment strategies, and the potential for integrated care models for individuals suffering from both conditions.

Table 6.

Most frequent keywords in bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

Rank	Keyword	Frequency
1	Bipolar disorder	1252
2	Schizophrenia	521
3	Depression	490
4	Patient	469
5	Monitoring	428
6	Smartphone	412
7	Artificial intelligence	391
8	Machine learning	382
9	Treatment	359
10	Biomarker	358
11	Prediction	342
12	Cognitive function	312
13	App	301
14	Self-management	292
15	Quality of life	281

Figure 6 presents the conceptual structure of the field based on keyword co-occurrence analysis. The network illustrates relationships between frequently used terms and the formation of thematic clusters within the literature. Node size reflects keyword frequency, while link thickness indicates the strength of co-occurrence between terms. Colors represent algorithmically generated thematic clusters produced by VOSviewer and indicate conceptual proximity rather than chronological progression or evidence hierarchy. In these network visualizations, colors do not reflect temporal progression or evidence hierarchy but instead indicate groups of keywords that frequently co-occur within the same publications. Therefore, cluster colors represent conceptual proximity rather than chronological development.

Figure 6.

Keyword co-occurrence map in bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

The network reveals five distinct thematic clusters.

The red cluster, located primarily in the lower-left region of the map, represents computational modeling and biomarker-oriented research. Prominent keywords include Bipolar disorder, machine, prediction, model, analysis, detection, identification, biomarker, and artificial intelligence. This cluster reflects the development of predictive algorithms and data-driven analytical approaches applied to psychiatric diagnosis and outcome prediction.

The green cluster, positioned in the upper-left central area, corresponds to the core clinical domain of bipolar disorder research. It includes keywords such as mania, depression, disorder, predictor, and relationship, highlighting research focused on symptom characterization, clinical course, and disorder-specific features.

The purple cluster, located in the upper-right region, reflects psychosocial functioning and cognitive health. Representative keywords include cognitive function, stress, sleep, quality of life, association, and notably smartphone. The placement of smartphone within this cluster suggests that digital tools are frequently used in the literature to capture behavioral, cognitive, and quality-of-life–related outcomes rather than purely technological monitoring functions.

The blue cluster, situated in the lower central-right portion of the network, represents treatment and applied technological domains. Keywords such as treatment, application, technology, psychosis, patients, development, and monitoring characterize this cluster. The inclusion of monitoring within this group indicates its close association with clinical implementation and treatment-support applications rather than feasibility-focused digital engagement.

The yellow cluster, positioned toward the far-right side of the map, reflects engagement, feasibility, and self-management aspects of digital psychiatry. It includes keywords such as self-management, adherence, feasibility, acceptability, individual, and serious mental illness, emphasizing patient engagement, intervention usability, and real-world implementation considerations.

Highly connected terms such as bipolar disorder and patient appear near the center of the network, acting as bridging concepts linking multiple thematic domains rather than belonging to a single cluster.

Temporal patterns were examined separately using overlay visualization, in which color gradients represent the average publication year of keywords and are independent of the cluster coloring displayed in Figure 6.

As shown in Figure 7, the temporal evolution of normalized keyword occurrences in bipolar disorder research between 2000 and 2025 is presented using an overlay visualization generated in VOSviewer. In this visualization, node colors represent the average publication year of each keyword rather than cluster membership or evidence hierarchy. Cooler colors (blue–green) indicate earlier prominence in the literature, whereas warmer colors (yellow–red) reflect more recent thematic emergence.

Figure 7.

Trend of scientific keyword occurrences in bipolar disorder research (2000–2025).

The visualization demonstrates heterogeneous growth trajectories across research themes. Core clinical terminology shows sustained presence across the study period, while technology-oriented keywords — including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and smartphone-based monitoring — appear with warmer overlay colors, indicating more recent integration into the literature. These patterns suggest a gradual thematic expansion toward digital psychiatry and data-driven approaches, reflecting increasing research attention to technology-assisted diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment strategies.

Keyword density map

Keyword density analysis is a key visual method in bibliometric studies that allows for the identification of the concentration and frequency of concepts within the research body. This tool enables researchers to graphically detect both high-frequency topics and underexplored areas, providing a clearer understanding of the conceptual focus and gaps in the existing literature.

As shown in Figure 8, the keyword density map, which illustrates the frequency and conceptual concentration of keywords in studies related to bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence. In this map, high-density keywords appear in yellow and red regions, indicating their frequent usage in the scientific literature. As the color shifts toward green and blue, it represents lower density areas, signifying less frequent mentions and lower scientific focus.

Figure 8.

Keyword density map in bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence research (2000–2025).

At the center of the map, the term Bipolar Disorder appears with the highest density, reflecting its central role in the field’s research landscape. Other keywords, such as Schizophrenia, Depression, Patient, Monitoring, Smartphone, Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning, are positioned in high-density layers surrounding the central core. These terms reflect the field’s expansion toward emerging technologies and digital tools for the diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the map also reveals that emerging keywords, such as Digital Psychiatry, Self-management, Serious Mental Illness, and Feasibility, appear in lower-density and more peripheral regions. This indicates that, although smart technologies are increasingly entering the mental health domain, certain new concepts have not yet been extensively explored in the scientific literature. The presence of these terms in less populated areas of the map highlights research gaps and potential opportunities for future studies.

The findings suggest that, so far, the majority of research has focused on more traditional aspects, such as clinical diagnosis, disease modeling, and comorbidity analysis. In contrast, novel topics related to digital psychiatry and AI-based interventions for patient self-management have received less attention. This situation underscores the need for future research strategies and exploration pathways to increasingly concentrate on emerging and underrepresented keywords, thereby helping to advance the field of digital mental health care.

Bibliographic coupling analysis

Bibliographic coupling map – journals

Bibliographic coupling analysis is an effective method in bibliometric studies that assesses the degree of overlap in referenced sources between articles or journals. This analysis reveals which journals share the highest proportion of references, indicating thematic or methodological proximity. In this study, the journal-level bibliographic coupling network was analyzed for publications related to bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence during the period 2000–2025.

As shown in Table 7, the Journal of Affective Disorders, with a coupling strength of 1200, ranks first among journals in terms of bibliographic coupling. This journal plays a central role in publishing research related to bipolar disorder and digital psychiatry, due to its extensive coverage of topics associated with mood disorders. The journals Bipolar Disorders and Schizophrenia Bulletin are ranked next, reflecting their focus on bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, respectively. This indicates thematic overlap and the use of similar reference sources in these research areas.

Table 7.

Top 10 journals by bibliographic coupling strength in bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

Rank	Journal name	Coupling strength
1	Journal of Affective Disorders	1200
2	Bipolar Disorders	880
3	Schizophrenia Bulletin	860
4	JMIR Mental Health	820
5	Frontiers in Psychiatry	800
6	European Psychiatry	780
7	Molecular Psychiatry	760
8	Translational Psychiatry	740
9	JMIR Preprints	720
10	Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica	700

Furthermore, journals such as JMIR Mental Health and JMIR Preprints, which specifically focus on digital health and smart technologies in psychiatry, have shown a considerable degree of bibliographic coupling. This highlights the substantial growth of digital psychiatry journals in recent years. Additionally, Frontiers in Psychiatry holds an important position in this analysis as an interdisciplinary journal with a focus on innovative technologies in mental health.

As shown in Figure 9, the bibliographic coupling network of journals. In this map, each node represents a journal, and the size of the node corresponds to its coupling strength. The lines between the nodes represent the extent of shared references; the more numerous and prominent the links, the greater the overlap in cited sources.

Figure 9.

Bibliographic coupling map of journals.

In this map, two main clusters are identified. The red cluster predominantly consists of classic psychiatry journals, such as the Journal of Affective Disorders, Bipolar Disorders, Schizophrenia Bulletin, and Molecular Psychiatry. These journals frequently use similar reference materials in the fields of neuroscience and traditional psychiatric disorders.

The green cluster represents digital health and technology-driven psychiatry journals, including JMIR Mental Health, JMIR Preprints, and BMC Psychiatry. This cluster reflects these journals’ focus on digital technologies, mental health applications, and smart monitoring systems.

Journals such as Frontiers in Psychiatry and European Psychiatry act as bridges between the traditional psychiatry field and modern technologies, positioning themselves at the center of the network. Through their interdisciplinary approach, these journals play a key role in converging classical and innovative domains.

The findings of this section indicate that the scientific publication structure in the field of bipolar disorder and digital psychiatry is evolving toward the integration of emerging technologies with clinical and neuroscience studies. The growth of digital health journals and their significant role in the bibliographic coupling network reflect a shift in publication patterns toward technological topics in recent years. This trend may signal the future direction of research, moving toward digitalization in diagnosis and treatment.

Bibliographic coupling of documents

In the document-level bibliographic coupling analysis, the scientific structure of articles in the field of bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence was investigated. This analysis aimed to identify the degree of thematic convergence and shared references among various articles. The results demonstrate that certain core publications in this field exhibit stronger connections due to their focus on similar topics and shared reference materials.

The data were extracted and analyzed using VOSviewer software, and the bibliographic coupling structure is depicted in Figure 10.

Figure 10.

Bibliographic coupling map of documents (2000–2025).

As shown in Table 8, the article by Torous (2016), with a coupling strength of 320, shares the highest number of references with other studies and occupies the central position in the network. This article places a particular emphasis on the digitalization of psychiatry, specifically on the use of smart technologies for monitoring and managing patients with bipolar disorder, making it one of the most pivotal works in the field. The article by Naslund (2015), focusing on digital health interventions for patients with psychiatric disorders, also exhibits high thematic convergence with other studies. Similarly, the works of Grist (2017), Low (2015), and Nicholas (2015) are identified as highly coupled documents, particularly in the areas of mental health application design and technology-based disease management.

Table 8.

Top 10 articles by bibliographic coupling strength in bipolar disorder, digital psychiatry, and artificial intelligence (2000–2025).

Rank	Author (Year)	Coupling strength
1	Torous (2016)	320
2	Naslund (2015)	310
3	Grist (2017)	305
4	Low (2015)	300
5	Sirmans (2013)	295
6	VanCampfort (2015)	290
7	Orrù (2012)	280
8	Anticevic (2013)	275
9	Price (2011)	270
10	Nicholas (2015)	265

As shown in Figure 10, the bibliographic coupling structure of documents. Larger nodes represent articles with higher coupling strength, while the connecting lines indicate shared references between publications.

Several distinct clusters can be identified in this network:

The green cluster mainly comprises articles related to the digitalization of mental health services and the application of artificial intelligence in psychiatric interventions. Central works in this cluster include Torous (2016), Naslund (2015), and Low (2015). This cluster reflects the recent focus on digital psychiatry and innovative technologies in mental health. The growth of specialized journals such as JMIR Mental Health is also prominent in this cluster, signifying a shift in scientific publishing toward technological topics in mental health.

The purple cluster focuses on brain imaging, biomarkers, and neural networks, with Orrù (2012) and Anticevic (2013) positioned at its center.

The red cluster mainly involves classic clinical studies on the epidemiology and traditional treatments of bipolar disorder. Within this cluster, Oquendo (2004) serves as one of the most frequently cited references.

According to the results, some articles, such as Vandana (2023) and Abi-Dargham (2023), are located at the periphery of the network and exhibit lower bibliographic coupling with other studies. These works often address emerging or novel interdisciplinary fields that have not yet been fully integrated into the mainstream scientific literature. For example, studies that combine artificial intelligence with biological and epidemiological data currently show limited coupling with other publications due to the innovative and nascent nature of their topics. This situation highlights conceptual gaps that may pave the way for future research opportunities.

The document-level bibliographic coupling analysis reveals that, particularly since 2015, the field of bipolar disorder and digital psychiatry has progressively shifted toward the extensive use of digital technologies, mental health apps, and machine learning algorithms. Specialized digital-focused journals such as JMIR Mental Health have emerged as key publication platforms, reflecting structural changes in scientific publishing.

However, peripheral articles with lower coupling strength point to opportunities for research development in cutting-edge areas, such as hybrid artificial intelligence, environmental data analysis, and digital mental health for underserved populations. Addressing these gaps may help pave the way for future studies and foster greater convergence in the scientific literature of this field.

Identification of research trends, gaps, and future directions

The findings of this bibliometric study indicate a substantial transformation in digital psychiatry and bipolar disorder research over the past two decades, with a pronounced thematic shift emerging after 2015. Keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed that digital monitoring–related terms formed a coherent thematic cluster in the network visualization, particularly within the cluster characterized by smartphone-related terms together with sleep, stress, and cognitive function (Figure 6). Although specific terms such as digital phenotyping and passive sensing may not appear explicitly in the visualization because low-frequency terms are filtered during network construction, this cluster conceptually reflects the growing emphasis on continuous behavioral monitoring and data-driven assessment approaches.

Temporal trend visualization further demonstrated that keywords related to artificial intelligence, machine learning, smartphone applications, and self-management experienced marked growth beginning around 2015 (Figure 7). This temporal acceleration suggests the growing prominence of AI-assisted digital phenotyping and mobile monitoring approaches as a major research direction in the field. Complementary evidence from bibliographic coupling analyses also identified a prominent research stream focused on technology-assisted monitoring and predictive modeling, reinforcing the interpretation that digital psychiatry has become one of the dominant thematic areas in recent years.

Beyond the increase in keyword frequency, the structural evolution of research networks highlights a broader conceptual transition away from episodic diagnostic frameworks toward continuous, ecological, and data-driven monitoring paradigms. Researchers have increasingly incorporated smart health applications, passive behavioral data, and machine-learning–based analytic strategies into bipolar disorder assessment. These developments reflect the movement toward individualized prediction models and multimodal data integration derived from smartphones, wearable technologies, and digital biomarkers. Such advances hold promise for improving diagnostic precision, enabling earlier relapse detection, and supporting more responsive clinical management. However, they also introduce important methodological and ethical challenges, including algorithmic bias, limited cultural generalizability, under-representation of non-Western populations, and privacy concerns associated with passive sensing data. Addressing these challenges requires rigorous validation procedures, transparent model auditing, and standardized data-governance frameworks.

Alongside technological developments, collaboration network analyses indicate persistent gaps in global scientific cooperation. Differences in research funding, disparities in digital infrastructure, and heterogeneous national priorities limit participation in multinational research projects. Structural barriers, such as language differences, lack of interoperable data systems, and inconsistent ethical regulations for AI-based mental health research, further restrict cross-border collaboration. As a result, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia maintain central positions within global networks, while emerging contributors like India and Brazil remain largely regionally oriented. These patterns risk perpetuating global inequalities in scientific output and may reduce the representativeness of AI models applied to diverse clinical populations.

Analysis of reference structures and bibliographic coupling also revealed a notable conceptual divide between emerging digital psychiatry research and classical biological or neuroscience-based approaches. While journals such as the Journal of Affective Disorders and JMIR Mental Health have become central outlets for research on digital interventions, leading journals in biological psychiatry, including Molecular Psychiatry and Translational Psychiatry, remain primarily associated with biomarker and neuroimaging-based studies. This persistent separation results in fragmented research clusters and highlights the lack of integration between biological, behavioral, and digital frameworks. Without intentional interdisciplinary efforts, this gap may slow progress toward developing comprehensive diagnostic, predictive, and therapeutic models for bipolar disorder.

Another important finding is related to patient acceptance and adherence. Concerns about privacy, low digital literacy, limited familiarity with technology, and cultural differences remain major barriers to the widespread adoption of digital mental health tools.^29,31,32 Evidence from other psychiatric fields such as eating disorders has demonstrated that health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) assessments must be tailored to disorder-specific functional impacts to ensure accuracy and patient relevance.⁵⁰ Similar efforts are needed in bipolar disorder, where specialized digital HRQoL instruments and cognitive-function assessment tools could significantly enhance clinical usability. Broader neurocognitive research also underscores the relevance of cognition-oriented evaluation frameworks, suggesting that digital phenotyping in bipolar disorder should more systematically incorporate cognitive performance markers.⁵²

Additionally, a significant conceptual gap persists in data integration. Most current studies focus predominantly on behavioral digital data, with limited attempts to combine these streams with biological markers such as genetics and neuroimaging.³ This narrow focus may result in incomplete models whose generalizability across diverse clinical environments is limited. Developing integrative frameworks that incorporate behavioral, biological, clinical, and environmental data would substantially strengthen the predictive and clinical value of digital psychiatry.

The practical implications of these findings emphasize the need for a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to AI-driven digital mental health. Joint research workshops involving developed and developing countries, multinational research consortia, and harmonized ethical frameworks could promote broader scientific cooperation and knowledge exchange. Strengthening digital infrastructure in countries with limited participation is essential for reducing global disparities. Likewise, user-centered design, robust data governance, and culturally sensitive digital interventions must be prioritized to enhance patient acceptance and clinical applicability.^29,31,32

Overall, the evidence indicates that the field is undergoing a fundamental shift from traditional episodic care toward continuous, data-driven, and personalized digital mental health strategies. This transformation aligns with global healthcare trends and has the potential to significantly improve patient outcomes and quality of life. Future progress will depend on expanding international collaboration, integrating biological and digital knowledge bases, and advancing precision-oriented interventions in mental health.

Future research should prioritize longitudinal clinical validation of digital phenotyping tools and the integration of multimodal datasets combining behavioral, biological, and environmental information. In particular, large-scale randomized clinical trials and real-world implementation studies are needed to determine the clinical effectiveness, safety, and scalability of AI-enabled digital interventions. Additionally, future investigations should focus on explainable artificial intelligence approaches, cross-cultural validation of predictive models, and the development of standardized ethical and regulatory frameworks to support responsible deployment in routine psychiatric care.

Discussion

This study explored the growth trajectory of research on artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies in the context of bipolar disorder over the last two decades. The findings demonstrate a significant expansion in digital psychiatry research, with AI-based digital phenotyping emerging as a major thematic area after 2015.^3,17,18 As the number of publications in early years (2000–2005) was very small, part of this observed exponential increase reflects a low baseline rather than a true surge in research activity. The increasing use of mobile health applications, wearable sensors, and passive behavioral data has introduced innovative approaches for detecting mood fluctuations and predicting relapse risk.^8,13,18 These developments support more personalized treatment strategies, enabling clinicians to tailor interventions to patient-specific patterns and trajectories.^14,15,54

Importantly, increased publication volume should not be interpreted as equivalent to methodological advancement. The evidence-level distribution observed in this study indicates that much of the field’s growth has been driven by exploratory, observational, and technology-development studies, while high-level randomized clinical evidence remains relatively scarce. This imbalance highlights the need for future research to prioritize rigorous longitudinal designs and controlled clinical trials to support the clinical translation of digital psychiatry innovations.

Importantly, bibliometric indicators capture productivity and structural evolution of a field rather than methodological rigor at the individual study level. Therefore, while the observed evidence distribution provides insight into the relative maturity of research designs, it should not be interpreted as a substitute for systematic quality appraisal. Future meta-analyses and risk-of-bias–focused reviews are required to determine the true clinical reliability of emerging AI-driven digital psychiatry interventions.

The proliferation of machine-learning models for analyzing multimodal data, including voice, text, physiological signals, and smartphone-based behavioral indicators, represents another major trend in the literature.^8,45,46 These technologies have enhanced the early identification of mood episodes and facilitated timely interventions, ultimately improving clinical outcomes and reducing hospitalization rates.

Geographically, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia contribute the largest share of global research output (Table 1; Figure 1). Yet, international collaboration remains limited, particularly among countries with rapidly increasing publication counts, such as India and Brazil. Structural inequalities, including disparities in digital health infrastructure, inconsistent national mental health priorities, and heterogeneous regulatory environments, continue to restrict global research integration. Additionally, language barriers and limited access to secure computational platforms further hinder scientific cooperation.

The analysis of source structures revealed a dual scientific landscape: journals focused on digital mental health (e.g., JMIR Mental Health) have become central for publishing AI-related research, while classical biological psychiatry journals (e.g., Molecular Psychiatry, Translational Psychiatry) retain prominence for biomarker and neuroimaging studies.^4,5 This divide highlights limited integration between digital methodologies and biological mechanisms, underscoring the need for interdisciplinary research linking behavioral digital data with neurobiological processes.

Patient acceptance and adherence remain major challenges to the real-world implementation of digital interventions. Concerns about privacy, limited digital literacy, and cultural differences play a substantial role in adoption barriers.^29,31,32 Lessons from related fields such as eating disorders demonstrate the importance of disorder-specific HRQoL assessments in improving patient-centered evaluation.⁵⁰ Incorporating similar tools into digital bipolar disorder research may enhance relevance and accuracy. Furthermore, emerging evidence from cognitive research highlights the importance of evaluating cognitive function in psychiatric and aging populations, suggesting an opportunity to integrate cognition-related metrics into digital phenotyping frameworks.⁵²

A key conceptual gap also exists in multimodal data integration. Most studies rely heavily on behavioral digital signals without pairing them with biological markers such as neuroimaging findings or genetic data.³ This limitation restricts the development of comprehensive predictive models. Interdisciplinary efforts that merge biological and digital data streams are essential for advancing precision psychiatry in bipolar disorder.

The practical implications of this study are clear. A holistic approach is required, one that integrates technological advances with biological insights and patient-centered design principles. Joint international workshops, cross-country research consortia, and investment in digital infrastructure, particularly in low-resource settings, are critical for reducing global disparities. Ethical principles, transparency in AI models, and robust privacy-protecting mechanisms must be prioritized to ensure equitable adoption across populations.^29,31,32

Overall, the findings suggest that bipolar disorder management within digital psychiatry is transitioning from traditional care models toward continuous, data-driven, and personalized interventions. This evolution aligns with global healthcare trends and holds significant potential for improving patient quality of life. Continued progress will require expansion of international collaboration, integration of biological and digital knowledge, and the development of culturally sensitive and ethically robust digital mental health tools.

These findings emphasize the importance of distinguishing bibliometric expansion from genuine evidence maturation when evaluating progress within rapidly evolving interdisciplinary research domains.

Beyond academic contributions, the findings offer practical implications for healthcare decision-makers, digital health developers, and policy stakeholders. The identified research clusters highlight areas where implementation efforts may be accelerated, particularly in patient engagement, remote monitoring, and data-driven clinical support. Furthermore, collaboration patterns suggest opportunities for strengthening interdisciplinary and cross-sector partnerships to enhance real-world impact.

This study has several limitations. Excluding hyper-authorship records may have reduced the visibility of large multi-institutional collaborations. Additionally, restricting the analysis to Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed may have led to the omission of relevant studies indexed elsewhere, introducing potential database coverage bias. Furthermore, bibliometric indicators primarily reflect publication productivity and citation relationships rather than methodological rigor or strength of evidence, limiting conclusions about the actual quality and clinical maturity of the literature. The use of VOSviewer also introduces methodological constraints, as clustering and network visualizations depend heavily on the accuracy and completeness of bibliographic metadata. Inconsistencies in author names, affiliations, or reference formatting may influence co-occurrence patterns, network density, and cluster formation, potentially affecting map interpretation. Moreover, the absence of qualitative content analysis restricts deeper contextual understanding of thematic evolution and research impact. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings, particularly regarding generalizability and the inferred maturity of emerging research themes. Future studies should incorporate broader data sources, qualitative assessments, and formal evidence-level evaluations to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the field. Finally, future research should assess the real-world clinical impact of AI-enabled technologies through randomized clinical trials and longitudinal studies to better establish safety, feasibility, and clinical utility in routine psychiatric care.

Conclusion

This bibliometric analysis underscores the substantial progress made in integrating technology into psychiatry, particularly in the context of bipolar disorder. The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and digital phenotyping since 2015 has transformed diagnostic and monitoring practices, paving the way for personalized, real-time mental health care solutions. However, despite these advancements, the findings highlight an uneven distribution of scientific contributions, with developed countries leading research output while emerging economies remain significantly underrepresented. Strengthening international collaborations and fostering interdisciplinary partnerships are essential steps in addressing this imbalance.

Moreover, future research should prioritize the validation of digital tools through large-scale clinical trials, ensuring that real-world data is incorporated into the evaluation process to verify both clinical efficacy and ethical implementation. Bibliometric analyses, such as the one presented in this study, can play a crucial role in informing the design of these trials by identifying promising technologies, emerging research clusters, and thematic gaps that warrant deeper investigation. By addressing these challenges, the field can move toward a globally inclusive, technology-driven psychiatric care model that enhances outcomes for individuals living with bipolar disorder. The collective effort to bridge gaps in research, clinical application, and international collaboration will ensure that innovative mental health solutions reach diverse populations, ultimately improving the quality of care worldwide.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the scientific community whose publications formed the basis of this bibliometric analysis.

ORCID iDs

Mahdi Naeim

Mohammad Narimani

Ethical considerations

Not applicable. This study is a bibliometric analysis based on previously published data. No human participants, personal data, or identifiable information were involved.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. This study does not involve any individual participants or identifiable personal data.

Author contributions

Mohammad Narimani contributed to the conceptualization, study design, methodology development, supervision, and critical revision of the manuscript. Mahdi Naeim was responsible for data collection, data analysis, visualization, and drafting the original manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to database licensing restrictions but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

References

Oliva

Fico

De Prisco

, et al. Bipolar disorders: an update on critical aspects. The Lancet Regional Health–Europe 2025; 4: 48.

Faurholt-Jepsen

Kessing

. Monitoring and treatment in patients with bipolar disorder using smartphones—New perspectives for improved quality in patient care. Psychiatry Research 2022; 317: 114844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114844

Orsolini

Fiorani

Volpe

. Digital phenotyping in bipolar disorder: Which integration with clinical endophenotypes and biomarkers? International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2020; 21(20): 7684. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21207684

Harrison

Geddes

Tunbridge

. The emerging neurobiology of bipolar disorder. Trends in neurosciences 2018; 41(1): 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2017.10.006

everus

Ebner-Priemer

Beier

, et al. Ambulantes Monitoring und digitale Phänotypisierung in Diagnostik und Therapie bipolarer Erkrankungen. Der Nervenarzt 2019; 90(12): 1215–1220.

Zarp

Bruun

Christiansen

, et al. Web-based cognitive screening in bipolar disorder: validation of the Internet-based Cognitive Assessment Tool in remote administration settings. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 2025; 79(1): 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039488.2024.2434601

Tremain

Fletcher

Meyer

, et al. Who benefits from digital interventions for bipolar disorder? Stage of illness characteristics as predictors of changes in quality of life. Bipolar Disorders 2024; 26(7): 684–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/bdi.13462

Milic

Stankic

Stefanovic

. Health-related quality of life questionnaires: Applications to eating disorders. In: Eating Disorders. Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp. 1517–1528.

Torous

Summergrad

Nassir Ghaemi

. Bipolar disorder in the digital age: new tools for the same illness. International journal of bipolar disorders 2016; 4(1): 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40345-016-0065-1

10.

Hassan

Milton

Sawyer

, et al. Utility of consumer-grade wearable devices for inferring physical and mental health outcomes in severe mental illness: Systematic review. JMIR Mental Health 2025; 12: e65143. https://doi.org/10.2196/65143

11.

Murnane

Cosley

Chang

, et al. Self-monitoring practices, attitudes, and needs of individuals with bipolar disorder: implications for the design of technologies to manage mental health. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2016; 23(3): 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv165

12.

Biagianti

Hidalgo-Mazzei

Meyer

. Developing digital interventions for people living with serious mental illness: perspectives from three mHealth studies. BMJ Ment Health 2017; 20(4): 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102765

13.

Mikaeili

Naeim

Narimani

. Reimagining Mental Health with Artificial Intelligence: Early Detection, Personalized Care, and a Preventive Ecosystem. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 2025; 31: 7355–7373. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S559626

14.

Bauer

Glenn

Geddes

, et al. Smartphones in mental health: a critical review of background issues, current status and future concerns. International journal of bipolar disorders 2020; 8(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40345-019-0164-x

15.

Milić

Zeković

Stankić

, et al. Cognition-enhancing drugs and applications to aging. In: Assessments, Treatments and Modeling in Aging and Neurological Disease. Academic Press, 2021, vol 1, pp. 367–378.

16.

Narimani

Naeim

. Artificial intelligence in mental health: integrating opportunities and challenges of multimodal deep learning for mental disorder prevention and treatment. Annals of Medicine and Surgery 2025; 87(9): 5757–5761. https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000003624

17.

Insel

. Digital phenotyping: technology for a new science of behavior. Jama 2017; 318(13): 1215–1216. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11295

18.

Faurholt‐Jepsen

Vinberg

Frost

, et al. Smartphone data as an electronic biomarker of illness activity in bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorders 2015; 17(7): 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/bdi.12332

19.

de Azevedo Cardoso

Kochhar

Torous

, et al. Digital tools to facilitate the detection and treatment of bipolar disorder: key developments and future directions. JMIR Mental Health 2024; 11: e58631. https://doi.org/10.2196/58631

20.

Faurholt-Jepsen

Kyster

Dyreholt

, et al. The effect of smartphone-based monitoring and treatment including clinical feedback versus smartphone-based monitoring without clinical feedback in bipolar disorder: the SmartBipolar trial—a study protocol for a randomized controlled parallel-group trial. Trials 2023; 24(1): 583. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07625-1

21.

Milic

Zrnic

Grego

, et al. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Managing Bipolar Disorder: A New Frontier in Patient Care. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2025; 14(7): 2515. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14072515

22.

Torous

Onnela

Keshavan

. New dimensions and new tools to realize the potential of RDoC: digital phenotyping via smartphones and connected devices. Translational psychiatry 2017; 7(3): e1053. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2017.25

23.

Bardram

Frost

Szántó

, et al. Designing mobile health technology for bipolar disorder: a field trial of the monarca system. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems 2013; 27: 2627–2636.

24.

Faurholt-Jepsen

Munkholm

Frost

, et al. Electronic self-monitoring of mood using IT platforms in adult patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review of the validity and evidence. BMC psychiatry 2016; 16(1): 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0713-0

25.

Narimisaei

Naeim

Imannezhad

, et al. Exploring emotional intelligence in artificial intelligence systems: a comprehensive analysis of emotion recognition and response mechanisms. Annals of Medicine and Surgery 2024; 86(8): 4657–4663. https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000002315

26.

Hsu

Lin

, et al. MoodSensing: A smartphone app for digital phenotyping and assessment of bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Research 2024; 334: 115790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115790

27.

Melcher

Hays

Torous

. Digital phenotyping for mental health of college students: a clinical review. BMJ Ment Health 2020; 23(4): 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2020-300180

28.

Majid

Reeves

Figueredo

, et al. The extent of user involvement in the design of self-tracking technology for bipolar disorder: literature review. JMIR Mental Health 2021; 8(12): e27991. https://doi.org/10.2196/27991

29.

Eisner

Faulkner

Allan

, et al. Barriers and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions for people with psychosis or bipolar disorder: systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis. JMIR Mental Health 2025; 12(1): e65246. https://doi.org/10.2196/65246

30.

Morton

Kanani

Dee

, et al. A Brief Video-Based Intervention to Improve Digital Health Literacy for Individuals With Bipolar Disorder: Intervention Development and Results of a Single-Arm Quantitative Pilot Study. Journal of Participatory Medicine 2025; 17(1): e59806. https://doi.org/10.2196/59806

31.

Patoz

Hidalgo-Mazzei

Pereira

, et al. Patients’ adherence to smartphone apps in the management of bipolar disorder: a systematic review. International journal of bipolar disorders 2021; 9(1): 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40345-021-00224-6

32.

Morton

Nicholas

Lapadat

, et al. Use of smartphone apps in bipolar disorder: an international web-based survey of feature preferences and privacy concerns. Journal of Affective Disorders 2021; 295: 1102–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.132

33.

Montag

Sindermann

Baumeister

. Digital phenotyping in psychological and medical sciences: a reflection about necessary prerequisites to reduce harm and increase benefits. Current Opinion in Psychology 2020; 36: 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.013

34.

Onnela

Rauch

. Harnessing smartphone-based digital phenotyping to enhance behavioral and mental health. Neuropsychopharmacology 2016; 41(7): 1691–1696. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.7

35.

Naeim

Narimani

. Cognitive-behavioral Therapy for Schizophrenia: A Bibliometric and Scientometric Study of Global Evidence, Gaps, and Emerging Themes. Psychiatric Quarterly 2025; 17: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-025-10240-9

36.

Morii

Coradin

de Castro

, et al. Artificial intelligence in bipolar disorder management: Enhancing diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction. Revista Ibero-Americana de Humanidades, Ciências e Educação 2024; 10(8): 2452–2459. https://doi.org/10.51891/rease.v10i8.15297

37.

Dunster

Swendsen

Merikangas

. Real-time mobile monitoring of bipolar disorder: a review of evidence and future directions. Neuropsychopharmacology 2021; 46(1): 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-00830-5

38.

Yeom

Yoon

Seo

, et al. Daily Self-Monitoring and Feedback of Circadian Rhythm Measures in Major Depression and Bipolar Disorder Using Wearable Devices and Smartphones–The Circadian Rhythm for Mood (CRM®) Trial Protocol: A Randomized Sham Controlled Double-Blind Trial. Psychiatry Investigation 2024; 21(8): 918–924. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0133

39.

Valeri

Cai

Rahimi Eichi

, et al. Smartphone-based markers of social connectivity in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. NPP—Digital Psychiatry and Neuroscience 2024; 2(1): 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44277-024-00013-w

40.

Faurholt-Jepsen

Kessing

. Digital Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches in Bipolar Disorder. In: Bipolar Disorder: An Evidence-Based Clinical Guide. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, vol 21, pp. 763–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-85519-1_38

41.

Pan

Wang

Xue

, et al. Machine learning for the diagnosis accuracy of bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry 2025; 15: 1515549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1515549

42.

Zhao

Sui

, et al. The current state and prospects of artificial intelligence in the detection of bipolar affective disorder. Proceedings of the 2023 4th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence for Medicine Science 2023; 20: 399–403.

43.

Charaan

Ithayan

Sankar

, et al. Detection and Classification of Bipolar Disorder Syndrome using Deep Learning. In: 2024 5th International Conference on Smart Electronics and Communication (ICOSEC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1596–1602.

44.

Campos-Ugaz

Garay

Rivera-Lozada

, et al. An overview of bipolar disorder diagnosis using machine learning approaches: clinical opportunities and challenges. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry 2023; 18(2): 237–247. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijps.v18i2.12372

45.

Jan

Ai-Ansari

Mousa

, et al. The role of machine learning in diagnosing bipolar disorder: scoping review. Journal of medical Internet research 2021; 23(11): e29749. https://doi.org/10.2196/29749

46.

Bayes

Spoelma

Parker

. Comorbid bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder: Diagnosis using machine learning. Journal of Psychiatric Research 2022; 152: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.05.032

47.

Mateo-Sotos

Torres

Santos

, et al. A machine learning-based method to identify bipolar disorder patients. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing 2022; 41(4): 2244–2265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00034-021-01889-1

48.

Panchal

de Queiroz Campos

Goldman

, et al. Toward a digital future in bipolar disorder assessment: a systematic review of disruptions in the rest-activity cycle as measured by actigraphy. Frontiers in psychiatry 2022; 13: 780726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.780726

49.

Fortuna

DiMilia

Lohman

, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a peer-delivered and technology supported self-management intervention for older adults with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Quarterly 2018; 89(2): 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-017-9534-7

50.

McCarthy

Wicker

Roddy

, et al. Feasibility and utility of mobile health interventions for depression and anxiety in rural populations: A scoping review. Internet Interventions 2024; 35: 100724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2024.100724

51.

Chen

Yuan

Dong

, et al. Artificial intelligence significantly facilitates development in the mental health of college students: A bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 2024; 15: 1375294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1375294

52.

Baminiwatta

. Global trends of machine learning applications in psychiatric research over 30 years: A bibliometric analysis. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 2022; 69: 102986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2021.102986

53.

Zhang

Wang

, et al. The application of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Care: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 2025; 110: 104596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2025.104596

54.

Lipschitz

Lin

Saghafian

, et al. Digital phenotyping in bipolar disorder: Using longitudinal Fitbit data and personalized machine learning to predict mood symptomatology. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2025; 151(3): 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13765

Mapping scientific trends in bipolar disorder and digital psychiatry (2000–2025): A bibliometric and visualized analysis of AI-driven diagnosis and digital interventions

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Data analysis and bibliometric tools

Descriptive statistical analysis

Content analysis

Results

Scientific collaboration analysis

Country collaboration network

Organizational collaboration network

Author collaboration network

Citation analysis

Citation mapping of articles

Thematic and conceptual structure analysis

Keyword co-occurrence mapping

Keyword density map

Bibliographic coupling analysis

Bibliographic coupling map – journals

Bibliographic coupling of documents

Identification of research trends, gaps, and future directions

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical considerations

Consent for publication

Author contributions

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data Availability Statement

References