Journal of Medical Internet Research
The leading peer-reviewed journal for digital medicine and health and health care in the internet age.
Editor-in-Chief:
Gunther Eysenbach, MD, MPH, FACMI, Founding Editor and Publisher; Adjunct Professor, School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Canada
Impact Factor 6.0 More information about Impact Factor CiteScore 11.7 More information about CiteScore
Recent Articles

The identification and management of depression during pregnancy is an important public health issue. Although many existing psychological intervention programs are effective, their implementation is plagued by issues, such as insufficient professional resources and lengthy intervention cycles. Studies have suggested that internet-based problem management plus (IPM+) can effectively address the aforementioned challenges in the management of general depression. However, its application in the pregnant population remains to be verified.

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning, has shown promise in enhancing medical image interpretation and improving radiologists’ efficiency. In China, growing imaging demand and workforce shortages have placed increasing pressure on radiology services. However, evidence on the operational impact of AI on reporting efficiency remains limited.

Deep research agents are autonomous large language model–based systems capable of iterative web search, retrieval, and synthesis. They are increasingly positioned as the next major leap in medical artificial intelligence. In this viewpoint, we argue that while these agents mark progress in information access and workflow automation, they represent an incremental evolution rather than a paradigm shift. We review current applications of deep research agents in biomedical scenarios, including literature review generation, clinical evidence synthesis, guideline comparison, and patient education. Across these early use cases, the tools demonstrate the ability to rapidly gather and structure up-to-date information, often producing outputs that appear comprehensive and well-referenced. However, these strengths coexist with unresolved and clinically significant limitations. Citation fidelity remains inconsistent across models, with subtle misinterpretations or unreliable references still common. Their retrieval processes and evidence-ranking mechanisms remain opaque, raising concerns about reproducibility and hidden biases. Moreover, overreliance on artificial intelligence–generated syntheses risks eroding clinicians’ critical appraisal skills and may introduce automation bias at a time when medicine increasingly requires deeper scrutiny of information sources. Safety constraints are also less predictable within multistep research pipelines, increasing the risk of harmful or inappropriate outputs. Finally, current evidence is largely limited to proof-of-concept evaluations, with little evidence from real-life clinical deployment. We contend that deep research agents should be embraced as assistive research tools rather than pseudoexperts. Their value lies in accelerating information gathering, not replacing rigorous human judgment. Realizing their potential will require transparent retrieval architectures, robust benchmarking, and explicit educational integration to preserve clinicians’ evaluative reasoning. Used judiciously, these systems could enrich medical research and practice; used uncritically, they risk amplifying errors at scale. We contend that deep research agents should be embraced as assistive research tools rather than pseudoexperts. Their value lies in accelerating information gathering, not replacing rigorous human judgment. Realizing their potential will require transparent retrieval architectures, robust benchmarking, and explicit educational integration to preserve clinicians’ evaluative reasoning. Used judiciously, these systems could enrich medical research and practice; used uncritically, they risk amplifying errors at scale.

With the development of digital health platforms, patients with breast cancer are increasingly relying on web-based resources to search for disease-related information. Proper usage of web-based health information by patients with breast cancer is crucial for understanding disease information and participating in treatment decisions. However, in the face of the large amount and complexity of information, it is still unclear how patients can make psychological adjustments and behavioral responses. Problems such as variable information quality and conflicting information are also affecting the cognitive and treatment decision-making process of patients with breast cancer.

Asynchronous telemedicine is a crucial component of multichannel health care, where effective communication drives satisfaction. However, the effectiveness of communication features remains poorly understood. Prior research relied on subjective surveys or small-scale simulations, failing to link features to objective outcomes. Understanding these features is critical for optimizing physician engagement and establishing quality indicators to enhance the patient experience.

Youth e-cigarette use rose sharply between 2013 and 2024 in the United States, prompting widespread prevention campaigns at national, state, and local levels. However, many campaigns encountered online opposition, sometimes leading to message distortion or campaign withdrawal. While previous studies have examined individual campaigns, little is known about how oppositional dynamics differ across social media platforms with distinct architectures.

Sedentary behavior (SB) is a modifiable risk factor for complications in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Despite widespread adoption of digital health platforms, theory-driven telehealth interventions specifically targeting SB reduction remain limited, particularly those incorporating cultural adaptation and behavioral change frameworks.

The rapid growth of digital health research, involving wearable devices, mobile apps, and sociotechnical health systems, raises complex ethical, legal, and social considerations. While institutional review boards and research ethics frameworks address some concerns, less is known about how students and trainees in digital health are systematically educated to recognize and navigate these challenges. Understanding the scope and content of ethics training is critical to ensuring the responsible development and application of digital health technologies.

The integration of patient-generated health data (PGHD) into health care has the potential to significantly transform patient care and clinical practice. PGHD includes health-related data created by patients, enabling the collection of health data beyond traditional health care settings. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has taken proactive steps to incorporate PGHD into health care through its Share My Health Data (SMHD) mobile app. Launched in 2023, the SMHD app allows veterans to securely share data from their personal digital health devices with the VA for clinical and research use. However, data characterizing patients who use such tools in real-world health care systems are lacking, creating an evidence gap for implementing PGHD-informed care equitably.

Early detection of Alzheimer disease (AD) is essential for timely intervention; yet, diagnostic performance varies widely across modalities and datasets. Recent multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) models have made significant progress, but the evidence base remains fragmented due to heterogeneous datasets, modeling frameworks, and reporting quality.


Preliminary research has suggested that internet use data could offer digital signals of early disease and has the potential to facilitate early detection and improve patient outcomes. However, there are significant challenges in linking individual-level internet use data with health outcomes. One key aspect is that the public might not be willing to share data for research or that selective data sharing might create bias in datasets and increase inequalities.
Preprints Open for Peer Review
Open Peer Review Period:
-
Open Peer Review Period:
-
Open Peer Review Period:
-
















