SCIENCE. OBSERVATION. HUMANITY.

FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE.

Curiosity without overclaiming. A research-first approach to understanding how AI use meets the human system.

THE EVIDENCE KEY

Not all evidence is the same.

Established

Recognised in authoritative classifications or established research. It does not imply that AI causes the phenomenon.

Emerging

Early or developing findings. Associations are not proof of causation; preprints have not completed peer review.

Proposed

A conceptual framework under evaluation, not a recognised clinical diagnosis.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Observe the human over time.

The report recommends a longitudinal design: Baseline → 2 weeks → 6 weeks → 3 months. Measure exposure before outcomes, including AI-use duration, oversight burden and night use. Compare custom domain scores with validated measures where feasible, and include repeated unaided cognitive tasks.

Pre-register hypotheses, primary outcomes and scoring before analysis. HRV and sleep measures may be added under appropriate clinical/research protocols. Sensitive health information requires explicit consent and privacy controls. Pattern scores are exploratory; clinical thresholds require calibration against validated measures, longitudinal outcomes and clinician assessment.

The study protocol, approved instruments and any ethics review details will be published when verified. This preview is not currently recruiting participants or collecting research data.

SOURCE OF TRUTH

The executive report.

Four AI-Related Human Health Risks · Recognition, intervention, assessment and communication framework. Prepared and evidence-reviewed 19 August 2026.

The assessment questions are presented within the Project’s awareness check, not as a downloadable questionnaire.

The summaries and framework on this site are drawn from the supplied report. The bibliography contains fourteen references, reproduced below with their original links. Inclusion is not independent clinical validation or ethics approval.

Emerging

BCG / Harvard Business Review · 2026

14% of AI users reported mental fatigue from excessive AI use or oversight.

Emerging

Microsoft Research & Carnegie Mellon · CHI 2025

Higher confidence in AI was associated with less critical-thinking activity.

Emerging

MIT Media Lab · 2025 · PREPRINT

LLM-assisted writers showed the weakest neural connectivity, poorer recall and ownership.

Established

World Health Organization · ICD-11

Burnout is a recognised occupational phenomenon.

Emerging

JMIR Mental Health · 2025

Sustained chatbot engagement may amplify or reshape psychotic experiences in vulnerable individuals.

REFERENCES / 14 SOURCES

The full reference list.

[1] Julia Worrall, RN. “AI Hyperarousal Syndrome (AIHS) — Clinical Definition & Priority Record.” Public clinical page, accessed 19 August 2026.

Original source ↗

[2] Julia Worrall. “AI Hyperarousal Syndrome — Self-Awareness Screening.” Landing page, accessed 19 August 2026.

Original source ↗

[3] Lee HP, Sarkar A, Tankelevitch L, et al. “The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers.” CHI 2025.

Original source ↗

[4] Kosmyna N, Hauptmann E, Yuan YT, et al. “Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task.” MIT Media Lab / arXiv preprint, 2025.

Original source ↗

[5] World Health Organization. “Burn-out an occupational phenomenon: International Classification of Diseases.” 28 May 2019.

Original source ↗

[6] World Health Organization. “Guidelines on mental health at work.” 28 September 2022.

Original source ↗

[7] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Mental wellbeing at work” (NG212). 2 March 2022.

Original source ↗

[8] Hudon A, Stip E. “Delusional Experiences Emerging From AI Chatbot Interactions or ‘AI Psychosis’.” JMIR Mental Health. 2025;12:e85799.

Original source ↗

[9] Pierre JM, Gaeta B, Raghavan G, Sarma KV. “‘You’re Not Crazy’: A Case of New-onset AI-associated Psychosis.” Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience. 2025;22(10–12):11–13.

Original source ↗

[10] Boston Consulting Group / Harvard Business Review. “When Using AI Leads to ‘Brain Fry’.” March 2026; BCG summary of study of 1,488 US workers.

Original source ↗

[11] Boston Consulting Group. “AI for CEOs: Amplifying Time and Judgment at the Top.” 23 June 2026.

Original source ↗

[12] Buçinca Z, Malaya MB, Gajos KZ. “To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making.” 2021.

Original source ↗

[13] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: getting help early if you are at risk of or have a first episode of psychosis” (CG178).

Original source ↗

[14] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: treatment options” (CG178).

Original source ↗

THE FOUR-DOMAIN FRAMEWORK