Published on in Vol 27 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/73689, first published .
Digital Therapeutics for Cognitive Impairment: Exploring Innovations, Challenges, and Future Prospects

Digital Therapeutics for Cognitive Impairment: Exploring Innovations, Challenges, and Future Prospects

Digital Therapeutics for Cognitive Impairment: Exploring Innovations, Challenges, and Future Prospects

1Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States

2Institute for Hospital Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

3National Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China

4School of Psychology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China

5Department of Neurology & Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Neurological Disorders, 45 Changchun Street, Beijing, China

Corresponding Author:

Yi Tang


Recent advancements in cognitive neuroscience and digital technology have significantly accelerated the adoption of digital therapeutics for cognitive impairment. This viewpoint explores the innovative applications of digital therapeutics in the assessment, intervention, management, and monitoring of cognitive disorders while highlighting key challenges that impede their widespread integration into clinical practice. Drawing on the definition of cognitive digital therapeutics (CDTx) and the multistakeholder collaboration required for its development and implementation, this paper examines the role of digital technologies in cognitive health and explores challenges from multiple perspectives, including clinical practice, policy framework, user adoption, ethics and privacy, and data interoperability and system integration. In addition, this viewpoint offers strategic recommendations to address the challenges and future prospects of CDTx, emphasizing the importance of multistakeholder collaboration, prioritizing user-centered design, and leveraging emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence to enhance the scalability, sustainability, and future integration of CDTx.

J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e73689

doi:10.2196/73689

Keywords



Cognitive impairment is a transitional stage between normal age-associated cognitive decline and dementia. Cognitive impairment encompasses a broad spectrum of syndromes characterized by persistent deterioration in cognitive function, which ultimately leads to a decline in daily living and working abilities, along with behavioral changes, placing a substantial burden on patients, families, and society. Globally, 43.8 million people were living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias in 2016, and this number may increase to 152 million by 2025 [1], with the associated economic burden estimated at US $2.8 trillion in 2019 and projected to exceed US $4.7 trillion by 2030 [2]. As the condition progresses, patients increasingly rely on informal caregivers, who face not only physical and emotional stress but also financial strain, including reduced work hours and income loss [3,4]. These trends underscore an urgent need for scalable, innovative, and cost-effective solutions to support individuals with cognitive impairment and their caregivers.

Advancements in information technology have paved the way for innovative medical technologies, supporting clinical practice, enhancing disease prevention, and improving prognostic management, offering significant potential in health care [5]. Since the establishment of the Digital Therapeutics Alliance in 2017, digitally-based therapeutic methods, digital therapeutics (DTx), have been widely researched and applied. DTx deliver medical interventions directly to patients using evidence-based, clinically evaluated software to treat, manage, and prevent a broad spectrum of diseases and disorders [6,7]. Currently, there is no universally accepted definition of DTx at the international level, however, DTx solutions commonly share key characteristics, including the use of high-quality software, rigorous evidence-based validation, and targeted therapeutic interventions [8,9]. DTx have the potential to reduce health care costs, save diagnostic and treatment expenses, improve disease diagnosis and treatment efficiency, increase patient accessibility, optimize disease treatment and management plans, enhance patient adherence, and improve treatment outcomes [4].

Cognitive digital therapeutics (CDTx) refer to innovative applications of DTx in the field of cognitive disorders. These software-driven interventions provide patients with evidence-based digital solutions for cognitive assessment, prevention, treatment, and ongoing management. Powered by clinically validated software programs, CDTx offer evidence-based approaches for cognitive assessment, behavioral intervention, and monitoring and management of cognitive disorders, providing scalable and personalized solutions to support cognitive care across diverse care settings. Despite their promise, the adoption of CDTx remains uneven and fraught with real-world challenges, particularly in reaching older populations, navigating regulatory ambiguity, ensuring data privacy, and achieving effective clinical integration. While recent literature offers valuable insights into the clinical efficacy and application scenarios of specific CDTx, ranging from randomized controlled trials of cognitive training for older adults [10], home-based digital interventions for patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) [11], and meta-analyses of computerized cognitive training [12], to reviews on digital support for patients, caregivers, and health care professionals [13], and regional digital cognitive screening programs for early prevention in developing settings [14], research that integrates technological innovation with the practical realities of cognitive care remains limited. Most existing studies focus on isolated interventions, lacking a structured perspective that addresses both the challenges and prospects of implementing DTx in this field. This absence of a comprehensive perspective leaves a critical gap in understanding how to scale innovation, address real-world barriers, and fully realize the potential of CDTx in routine clinical practice.

This study aims to explore the current landscape of CDTx by synthesizing published literature and our clinical experiences on recent innovations and critically assessing the challenges that limit their broader integration into health care systems. Through this perspective, we aim to provide timely, actionable insights for practitioners, researchers, and policy makers working to advance cognitive care. Ultimately, we underscore the potential of DTx to promote healthy aging and improve cognitive outcomes for aging populations worldwide. This study is structured around the following key dimensions: the innovative applications of CDTx, the emerging challenges, and the future prospects in their real-world adoption. Specifically, we explore how CDTx are currently applied in cognitive assessment, intervention, and long-term management across health care settings. We then analyze major challenges, such as limited clinical evidence, inadequate regulatory and policy frameworks, user engagement issues, ethical and privacy concerns, and technical interoperability, that constrain broader implementation. Finally, we highlight strategic prospects to support scalable, sustainable, and equitable integration of CDTx into routine care.


Digital Cognitive Assessment

Overview

Traditional paper-and-pencil cognitive tests, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, are widely used in clinical practice. However, these conventional methods exhibit numerous limitations, including the necessity for professional personnel to conduct face-to-face interviews, the potential for human bias in test results, and practice effects resulting from repeated administrations [15,16]. To overcome these limitations and support more scalable approaches to assessment and screening, digital cognitive assessments have emerged, leveraging emerging technologies to achieve automated, standardized, convenient, multidimensional evaluations of cognitive functions. Over the past 2 decades, digital cognitive assessment has experienced rapid development, with extensive research and adoption in clinical settings [15,16]. These digital assessments rely on objective, quantifiable, physiological, and behavioral data collected by digital devices, enabling continuous ecological assessment and long-term monitoring of cognitive health. Many CDTx solutions integrate assessment features, such as digital assessment and screening tests, to track cognitive status over time. Based on functionality, technological characteristics, and application scenarios, digital cognitive assessment can be broadly categorized into three primary types: (1) computerized cognitive assessment, (2) digital biomarker-driven cognitive assessment, and (3) multimodal brain imaging cognitive assessment.

Computerized Cognitive Assessment

Computerized cognitive assessments include both scale-based assessments and task-based assessments, developed based on traditional pencil-and-paper tests, which have been viewed as the gold standard for diagnosis. For example, digitalized versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale have been validated and show good consistency with traditional paper-and-pencil methods [17], offering advantages such as automated scoring and real-time data analysis. Meanwhile, task-based assessments like the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery [18], Brain-Check [19], Neurotrack cognitive Battery [20], and the Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation Initiative brain health system evaluate cognitive abilities such as memory, attention, and executive function through interactive tasks and simulated environments [21]. Furthermore, virtual reality (VR) environments and computerized cognitive games constitute significant components in this category. These digital technologies either simulate traditional cognitive assessments or create novel interactive tasks to evaluate a broad range of cognitive functions. For example, the Virtual Supermarket uses immersive environments to simulate shopping tasks, providing an effective method for assessing executive functions and memory capabilities [22]. In addition, computerized cognitive games, such as Episode Gamification, engage user engagement through gamified design while simultaneously evaluating various cognitive domains, including memory, attention, and executive functions [23].

Digital Biomarker-Driven Cognitive Assessment

Digital biomarkers are objective, quantifiable, physiological, and behavioral data collected and measured through digital devices, such as embedded environmental sensors, portable devices, and wearable. These data can be gathered in the context of daily activities with minimal intrusion, enabling ecological monitoring. Digital biomarkers are increasingly used for early detection and follow-up of cognitive impairment. For instance, older adults with cognitive impairments show significantly reduced daily activity ranges compared with cognitively normal older adults, with more restricted and stable activity patterns [24]. Therefore, monitoring their daily behavior trajectories can provide early warnings. Furthermore, by integrating machine learning and deep learning algorithms and incorporating speech and natural language processing from both healthy and patient populations, classifiers can be constructed to identify cognitive impairments. It has been found that speech fluency, complexity, and coherence can also serve as markers for early screening [25]. In addition, significant oculomotor impairments have been observed in cognitive impairment patients [26], which monitors eye movements and visual attention through tasks such as reading comprehension and visual search, providing insights into abnormal attention and visual behaviors [27].

Multimodal Brain Imaging Cognitive Assessment

Multimodal imaging techniques offer diverse perspectives for observing and analyzing the brain, providing critical imaging evidence for the early diagnosis of AD by assessing structural, functional, and metabolic changes. Currently, widely used multimodal imaging techniques for AD assessment include structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) [28]. Additionally, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and other advanced methods provide critical insights into the disease's pathology and progression [28], and no imaging modality can serve all purposes as each has unique strengths and weaknesses [29]. In recent years, machine learning techniques have become increasingly integrated with multimodal imaging data, improving diagnostic efficiency and accuracy by classification and prediction. A widely used machine learning and deep learning approach in this context is ensemble learning, which integrates multiple machine learning models to optimize fusion strategies. For instance, Shukla et al [30] applied ensemble learning to positron emission tomography and T1-weighted MRI data from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset for both binary and multiclass classification of AD, cognitive impairment, and cognitively normal individuals. Their approach achieved up to 99% accuracy for binary classification and 96% for multiclass classification, demonstrating its potential in early AD diagnosis [30]. Convolutional neural networks have also shown strong performance in AD classification. Farooq et al [31] used deep convolutional neural networks with a 4-way classifier to categorize AD progression stages, achieving 98.8% accuracy on the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset. Furthermore, neuromorphic computing, inspired by human brain mechanisms such as neural connectivity and synaptic plasticity, enhances both machine learning and deep learning models, excelling in cognitive function analysis and medical imaging tasks. In AD research, Turkson et al [32] demonstrated that spiking neural networks outperform traditional machine learning methods in predicting AD classification. In addition, a hybridization of machine learning and deep learning is also used for classifying AD, achieving an accuracy of 91.84% on test data [33].

Digital cognitive assessment methods offer distinct functional strengths across modalities, and their thoughtful integration may provide a more comprehensive understanding and assessment of cognitive performance in real-world environments and clinical settings.

Digital Cognitive Intervention

Overview

There is currently no definitive cure or intervention for cognitive impairment, with existing management strategies primarily aimed at symptom control and slowing disease progression [22]. In parallel, pharmaceutical approaches face significant challenges, with AD drug development showing a failure rate as high as 99.6% [34]. Given the lack of an intervention for cognitive impairment and dementia, research has increasingly focused on delaying disease progression and developing interventions to enhance and preserve cognitive function [35]. CDTx have emerged as a promising direction in this context, particularly for older adults with cognitive impairment. These interventions can be broadly categorized into 3 types. The first involves strengthening existing cognitive pathways through behavioral exercises to enhance specific cognitive functions; the second targets the direct modulation of brain activity to improve overall brain function or the targeted brain regions; and the third aims to identify and manage risk factors associated with cognitive decline, such as lifestyle behaviors, chronic diseases, and mental health issues, with the goal of mitigating root causes and delaying onset.

Behavioral Training for Cognitive Enhancement

Many traditional cognitive interventions have been adapted for use on current technological devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and computers, and corresponding digital interventions have been developed based on identified evaluation metrics. These approaches are not only cost-effective alternatives but also innovative solutions for cognitive enhancement [36]. For instance, CogniFit (CogniFit Ltd) implements personalized and gamified cognitive tasks that participants can perform at home. This intervention effectively enhances cognitive function while promoting engagement and adherence through psychoeducation and behavior modification techniques. It has been shown to significantly improve cognitive impairments in older adults [37]. Furthermore, video games combining cognitive gameplay with physical exercise, referred to as “Exergames,” have been developed. These games have been shown to improve physical function, reduce depression, and enhance cognition and quality of life in older adults [38]. VR also represents a promising intervention, with its immersive and interactive features making it well-suited for simulating complex environments and tasks to improve cognitive training outcomes. Although studies validating the effectiveness of VR remain relatively limited, existing research suggests its potential to improve memory function and social interaction [39]. Further research is needed to optimize the design and broaden the application of these technology-based interventions [40].

Direct Modulation of Brain Activity for Cognitive Improvement

This approach primarily uses neuro-modulation technologies to target specific brain regions or neural circuits, enhancing or restoring brain function. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is a widely used technique that has been shown to improve cognitive function in patients with cognitive impairment [41], and various combinations of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation parameters have been found effective in enhancing different cognitive domains–based approaches suggest that cognitive impairments are linked to distributed brain networks rather than isolated regions [42]. The corticohippocampal circuit, crucial for long-term memory, can be targeted through paired associative stimulation (PAS) to enhance memory connections. Studies have shown that PAS improves delayed recall in cognitive impairment by synchronizing neuronal activity within this network [43]. In addition, PAS mimics sleep-related neural oscillations, facilitating memory consolidation and optimizing memory training outcomes [44].

Identification and Intervention of Risk Factors for Cognitive Decline

The 2024 Lancet Commission reports that around 45% of dementia cases may be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors, including lifestyle, health, environmental, and social factors [45]. In line with this, another approach to improving cognitive abilities involves addressing risk factors that impair cognitive development, such as diabetes, depression, and hypertension [46]. For example, Deprexis, a digital tool based on psychotherapy, helps improve mood and increase positive emotions and behaviors [47]. The HERB Digital Hypertension 1 (HERB-DH1) alleviates hypertension by offering education and lifestyle guidance, including reducing salt intake, controlling weight, exercising, improving sleep quality, and managing stress [48]. In addition, other digital intervention tools targeting diet, smoking, and alcohol consumption can also be effectively used to address these risk factors.

Digital cognitive interventions reflect an evolving understanding that cognitive health is related not only to neural mechanisms, but also to behavioral, psychological, and environmental factors. As such, digital cognitive interventions hold significant potential to complement existing care models and broaden access to timely, personalized support.

Digital Cognitive Management and Monitoring

Overview

Cognitive management and monitoring refer to the ongoing tracking of cognitive functions over time, offering a longitudinal view of an individual’s cognitive health. This approach captures fluctuations in cognitive abilities, supports early detection of decline, and enables timely intervention and cognitive care planning.

Cognitive Assistance Technology

Cognitive assistance technologies leverage digital tools, including information and communication devices and decision-support systems, to help individuals with cognitive impairment and their caregivers in daily cognitive care and management. These technologies aim to enhance quality of life, improve caregiving efficiency, and promote independent living. Personal digital assistance programs, such as smartphone apps, assist with daily life management by helping patients manage time, remember appointments, and organize tasks, which have been shown to significantly improve executive function in patients with acquired brain injuries [49]. In addition, many of these therapeutics integrate health monitoring features, such as medication reminders and physiological data tracking, providing valuable feedback loops for clinicians and care teams. Wearable devices such as smartwatches and fitness trackers further expand cognitive assistance by continuously monitoring physical activity, sleep patterns, and cognitive performance, enabling real-time adjustments to interventions as needed [50]. Multimedia-based tools, including video, audio, and internet-based assistive tools also provide rich resources for caregivers, including online training, remote video calls for timely support, and artificial intelligence (AI)–powered decision support systems that generate personalized care plans based on patients’ data [51].

Real-Time Cognitive Monitoring Technology

Real-time cognitive monitoring technologies collect objective physiological and behavioral data to continuously assess patients’ cognitive status and functional capacity in daily life. Devices such as actigraphy sensors, GPS, in-home cameras, and electroencephalography (EEG) systems enable and facilitate real-time tracking, analysis, and evaluation of cognitive status and intervention effectiveness. Mobile apps and mobile health solutions are increasingly used to provide task-based feedback and cognitive performance tracking over time, helping patients and clinicians identify patterns in cognitive function [52].

Advanced EEG methods, including quantitative EEG, are now being embedded into digital monitoring devices to detect abnormal brain activity and enable earlier identification of cognitive decline. Furthermore, machine learning algorithms and large language models applied to real-time data can forecast future cognitive decline based on behavioral and neural biomarkers, opening new possibilities for early diagnosis and proactive intervention [53].

Digital cognitive management and monitoring technologies mark a shift toward proactive, personalized, and data-driven cognitive care and management. By supporting both individuals and caregivers through real-time feedback and adaptive support systems, these tools offer meaningful opportunities to enhance quality of life and optimize care delivery across various stages of cognitive impairment.

Figure 1 presents a structured summary of the innovative applications of CDTx for cognitive impairment, categorizing their core functions into 3 domains—digital cognitive assessment, digital cognitive intervention, and digital cognitive management and monitoring. The figure highlights how these technologies are applied across the care continuum to support early detection, personalized treatment, and ongoing disease management for cognitive impairment.

Figure 1. Cognitive digital therapeutics. AD: Alzheimer disease; AI: artificial intelligence; DTI: diffusion tensor imaging; EEG: electroencephalogram; fMRI: functional magnetic resonance imaging; MCI: mild cognitive impairment; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; PAS: paired associative stimulation; PET: positron emission tomography; rTMS: repetitive transcranial magnetic simulation; sMRI: structural magnetic resonance imaging; VR: virtual reality.

Clinical Evidence and Effectiveness

Challenges

CDTx must undergo rigorous clinical validation to ensure their adoption in health care. Despite growing enthusiasm, the lack of comprehensive clinical validation makes it difficult for stakeholders to assess their true value compared with conventional interventions. One major challenge lies in the heterogeneity of cognitive impairment populations, which complicates the development of standardized protocols and outcomes metrics [54]. This variability hampers the ability to draw consistent, generalizable conclusions from clinical trials and real-world implementations consistently.

Another critical obstacle is the rapidly evolving nature of DTx technologies, which often outpaces the development of clinical guidelines and regulatory frameworks. This technological dynamism can lead to discrepancies in trial designs, end point selection, and outcome measures, making comparisons across studies difficult and limiting the accumulation of robust evidence [55]. In addition, cultural and geographic variations in clinical practice and health care infrastructure further complicate the establishment of unified evidence frameworks that can be applied universally [56].

Future Prospects

To address these challenges, innovative strategies emphasize the potential of real-world evidence and home-based interventions. For example, remotely supervised programs that integrate both cognitive and physical training reduce patient and caregiver burden while enabling broader participation and scalable clinical data collection [57]. Likewise, leveraging data from electronic health records and wearable devices allows for the generation of real-world insights that complement traditional clinical trial findings, providing a more comprehensive understanding of DTx outcomes and performance [58].

Cross-sector collaboration is essential to accelerating clinical validation efforts. Consensus building among researchers, clinicians, and patient groups can help define standard outcomes and protocols, as well as the acceptable efficacy threshold [59]. International efforts and coordination on clinical trial methodology and data-sharing practices will be critical to facilitate evidence accumulation, consistency, and comparability of findings.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Policy Gaps

Challenges

CDTx face significant regulatory challenges due to the absence of dedicated pathways for their development, validation, market entry, and postmarket oversight. Existing medical device regulations lack the flexibility required to accommodate rapidly evolving digital health technologies and DTx, leading to uncertainties in approval, compliance, and clinical adoption [60,61]. The lack of harmonized regulatory standards results in inconsistent prescribing criteria across jurisdictions, which complicates clinical integration and limits the scalability of DTx solutions [62,63]. In addition, ongoing debates over whether DTx should follow a prescription-based model or be available directly to consumers further fragment the regulatory landscape, influenced by divergent commercial strategies and legal frameworks [64].

Furthermore, current regulatory structures struggle to incorporate dynamic mechanisms that can keep pace with the fast-moving technological innovations [65]. Varying evidence requirements across countries or states often lead to redundant approval processes, increasing costs and delaying the timely entry of products into the market [66]. Furthermore, many current regulatory assessments and policies do not adequately account for the broader impact of DTx on patient education, behavioral change, and system efficiency [67], reflecting underlying policy gaps in recognizing the multifaceted value of DTx. Insufficient or absent postmarket surveillance mechanisms and inadequate policy oversight further limit the ability to monitor the long-term safety, real-world effectiveness, and scalability of CDTx [68].

Future Prospects

Several recent policy efforts suggest a shift toward greater alignment and innovation in regulating digital health. At the global level, leading regulatory bodies have also made strides in establishing pathways for the evaluation and approval of DTx. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration adopted the Software as a Medical Device regulatory framework [9], which aligns with international guidelines developed by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum, this framework provides risk-based classification and guidance for DTx, with several products such as EndeavorRx, which is a digital therapeutic product designed by Akili Interactive, already approved under these standards [69]. In Europe, in its Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025, the European Medicines Agency proposes the creation of an integrated evaluation pathway for assessing medical devices, in vitro diagnostics, and borderline products including digital health technologies and therapeutics [70]. In China, guidelines from the National Health Commission, the National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention have laid the foundation for promoting AI applications and digital health technologies including DTx, providing a strategic framework and instructions for the application of AI and digital health in health care [71]. These guidelines emphasize the safe and strategic integration of emerging technologies into clinical pathways, providing a regulatory environment that supports both innovation and standardization.

Despite these advances, cross-national variations in evidence thresholds, regulatory timelines, and postmarket surveillance systems persist. This lack of harmonization and consistency often leads to duplicative regulatory burdens, increased costs, and slower global dissemination of DTx. To bridge the gap between technological innovation and outdated regulatory structures, tailored regulatory frameworks are needed to establish safety, efficacy, and usability standards while enabling adaptive to adjust and change that could accommodate ongoing technology advancements [72,73]. One promising model is the use of “regulatory sandboxes,” which provide controlled environments for testing DTx and digital health products under specific safety standards and regulatory oversight [73]. This approach enables more agile evaluation and iterative refinement, allowing regulatory bodies to monitor emerging therapeutics and technologies more closely, thereby accelerating time to market while safeguarding patient safety.

In addition, enhanced collaboration among regulators, policy makers, clinicians, and industry stakeholders will be essential to streamline prescribing guidelines and establish consistent approval criteria [65]. Global harmonization of clinical evidence requirements across jurisdictions can help reduce redundant approval processes, lower market entry barriers, and accelerate the adoption of DTx [66]. Finally, strengthening postmarket surveillance through real-time data analytics, patient registries, and adverse event tracking will enable regulators and policy makers to respond more dynamically, ensuring that DTx remain safe, effective, and sustainable over time [68].

Patient Acceptance and Engagement

Challenges

The adoption and implementation of DTx depend significantly on user acceptance and long-term engagement, both of which are influenced by factors such as perceived usefulness, ease of use, trust, and accessibility. One persistent challenge is high dropout rates and nonadherence, often linked to difficulties in maintaining interest and motivation over time. For patients with cognitive impairments or limited digital literacy, these platforms may present a steep learning curve or misunderstanding, leading to user frustration, disengagement, and eventual abandonment of DTx. Another key issue is perceived usefulness, if users do not experience clear benefits such as improved health outcomes and enhanced quality of life compared with traditional treatment methods, they are unlikely to maintain consistent engagement [74]. Similarly, complex user interfaces, technical glitches, or insufficient support can act as further barriers to adoption [75]. These factors are especially important in older populations, where cognitive limitations may intersect with low technology familiarity.

Notably, a qualitative study involving older adults using a cognitive training DTx platform found that although some users experienced difficulties understanding the instructions, many still perceived the platform as both enjoyable and beneficial, particularly when it was recommended by health care providers. Participants expressed strong awareness of the importance of cognitive training and demonstrated greater trust and willingness to engage with digital health technologies and therapeutics that were clinician-endorsed [76].

Future Prospects

To address these engagement challenges, user-centered design must be placed at the core of DTx development. Iterative co-design approaches emphasize the importance of involving target users throughout the development cycle and can ensure that DTx products align with their real-world needs, preference, and capabilities [77]. Participatory design frameworks, such as those applied in the iReadMore app (Neurotherapeutics Group), have been shown to enhance usability and promote user motivation and accessibility through personalization and intuitive interfaces [78].

Tailoring DTx products to the cognitive and physical capabilities of target populations is critical. For example, interfaces designed with simplified navigation, voice support, and visual aids may increase accessibility for users with mild cognitive impairment. As Vial et al [79] discuss, human-centered and empathic design processes ensure that digital mental health interventions are both accessible and aligned with user needs, fostering trust and long-term usage. In parallel, trusted intermediaries, such as physicians, therapists, or community health workers, play a crucial role in increasing adoption by legitimizing the use of DTx and encouraging long-term use [79]. Wong et al [80] emphasize that user-centered design not only improves usability but also ensures integration with clinical workflows, enhancing the credibility of digital tools when endorsed by medical professionals. Furthermore, Strauss et al [81] argue that cross-functional frameworks, including input from patients and health care providers, result in solutions that are both effective and engaging. By addressing these barriers and emphasizing user-centered, humanized design, digital therapies can achieve greater acceptance and adherence among diverse patient populations.

Data Privacy and Ethical Concerns

Challenges

The rapid development of DTx brings significant ethical and privacy-related concerns that must be addressed to ensure patient trust, data safety, and equitable access to care. One of the foremost challenges is data privacy and security, as DTx platforms often require the continuous collection and processing of highly sensitive personal health data. This introduces substantial risks of unauthorized access, data breaches, and misuse, particularly when robust data protection measures are currently lacking. These risks are further complicated by regional inconsistencies in data protection legislation, such as varying implementations of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–like frameworks, leading to uneven security levels across jurisdictions [82].

Another critical concern is informed consent. Many patients, particularly those with cognitive impairments, struggle to fully understand the implications of data-sharing policies, especially when consent forms and data practices are opaque or overly complex, undermining the principle of truly informed consent [83].

In addition, digital health technologies frequently require reliable internet access, compatible devices, and basic digital literacy, creating barriers for underprivileged populations and potentially exacerbating health inequities. The lack of robust postmarket surveillance systems further compounds these concerns, as ongoing real-world safety and effectiveness data are often insufficient, making it difficult to oversee and identify emerging ethical risks [65].

Future Prospects

A comprehensive, ethically grounded strategy is essential to ensure the safe, ethical, and equitable deployment of CDTx. First, strengthening data protection frameworks is crucial, this includes mandating the use of encryption, anonymization, and secure data storage protocols, as well as enforcing compliance with international standards such as General Data Protection Regulation [84]. Second, simplifying consent processes and improving transparency can empower patients to make truly informed decisions [85], this may involve visual aids, plain language summaries, or interactive digital interfaces that clarify how personal data will be used. To further promote fairness, developers need to actively address algorithmic biases through inclusive design, regular ethical audits, and accountability mechanisms to ensure system decisions do not reinforce existing disparities [86,87].

Furthermore, integrating comprehensive postmarket surveillance on data privacy and safety as a core component of DTx regulation is vital, including real-time monitoring, longitudinal patient registries, and adverse event tracking and reporting systems to continuously monitor and enhance safety and ethical integrity over time [88]. Finally, ethically sound deployment of CDTx requires long-term collaboration among different stakeholders. Regulatory bodies, clinicians, industry developers, and patient advocacy groups must co-develop ethical guidelines and frameworks that reflect diverse values and lived experiences [89]. Such collaboration ensures that DTx are implemented in a way that protects individual data and rights while advancing clinical innovation.

Data Interoperability and System Integration

Challenges

The effective integration of CDTx into existing health care systems is significantly hindered by issues of data interoperability and system integration. Seamless data exchange between CDTx platforms and electronic health records (EHRs) is crucial for clinical utility, yet technical fragmentation and inconsistent standards remain major obstacles [90]. Many health information technology systems operate in silos, and the lack of consistent technical standards across platforms, along with fragmented digital health ecosystems, poses significant barriers to building a unified infrastructure [91].

Furthermore, current health care infrastructures often lack the capacity to accommodate digital health and DTx products, especially in resource-limited settings [91]. Although standards such as HL7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) are gaining momentum, implementation remains inconsistent and uneven across regions and health care organizations, leading to gaps in compatibility and functionality. These problems are compounded by the increasing reliance on internet of things devices, such as wearables and home monitoring tools, which often struggle to interface effectively with cloud-based EHR systems, this lack of compatibility limits the aggregation, accessibility, and clinical utility of patient data in clinical settings [92].

Future Prospects

Addressing these challenges requires the creation of an open, interoperable digital ecosystem. Adopting globally recognized interoperability standards will enhance the usability, integration, and scalability of CDTx [93,94]. Among these, HL7 FHIR has emerged as a foundational framework for standardized data exchange across diverse health care systems. Its modular architecture and open application programming interface design make it especially well-suited for supporting DTx in dynamic and data-intensive environments [95].

Beyond interoperability, data security must remain a parallel priority. Integrating blockchain technologies into FHIR-based systems has shown potential for enhancing the trustworthiness and traceability of shared health data while reducing risks of unauthorized access and data breaches [93].

In clinical practice, the successful integration of CDTx with EHR systems could unlock personalized decision support, reduce diagnostic errors, and enable more adaptive, data-driven care pathways [96,97]. As interoperability standards become more widely adopted and system integration capabilities continue to improve, DTx can evolve from standalone tools to fully embedded components within the cognitive care delivery system, significantly enhancing their effectiveness and sustainability.

Challenges and future prospects of CDTx involve 5 key domains, that is, clinical evidence and effectiveness, regulatory uncertainty, patient acceptance, data privacy and ethics, and system interoperability. Figure 2 outlines these challenges and potential development pathways from a multistakeholder perspective. Table 1 complements this by summarizing key issues and proposed strategies across stakeholder groups, offering a practical foundation to support the clinical adoption and broader implementation of CDTx in cognitive care.

Figure 2. Summary of challenges and future prospects for cognitive digital therapeutics.
Table 1. Challenges, key issues, and future prospects for cognitive digital therapeutics.
ChallengesKey issuesFuture prospects
Clinical evidence and effectiveness
  • Limited clinical validation
  • Heterogeneous patient populations
  • Lack of standard outcome metrics
  • DTxa evolves faster than trials
  • Cross-cultural inconsistencies
  • Real-world data from EHRsb and wearables
  • Home-based cognitive training
  • Global consensus on protocols
  • Harmonized clinical trial methods
Regulatory uncertainty and policy gaps
  • No dedicated DTx regulatory pathway
  • Inconsistent prescribing policies
  • Delayed approvals
  • Insufficient postmarket surveillance
  • Adaptive frameworks and sandboxes
  • Unified criteria across regions
  • Policy guidance (eg, AI+c in China)
  • Dynamic postmarket systems and policies
Patient acceptance and engagement
  • Low digital literacy
  • Poor perceived value
  • High dropout rates
  • Interface usability issues
  • Lack of provider support
  • User-centered and co-design development
  • Simple, tailored interfaces
  • Clinician endorsement
  • Inclusive engagement strategies
Data privacy and ethical concerns
  • Data privacy vulnerabilities
  • Complex consent processes
  • Inconsistent global protection laws
  • Exclusion of underserved groups
  • Stronger data protection (eg, GDPR)d
  • Transparent, simplified consent
  • Algorithmic fairness
  • Multistakeholder ethical governance
Data interoperability and system integration
  • Fragmented health ITe systems
  • Lack of standard APIsf
  • Limited infrastructure
  • IoTg-EHR compatibility issues
  • HL7 FHIRh-based integration
  • Blockchain-secured exchange
  • Personalized decision support
  • Interoperable digital ecosystems

aDTx: digital therapeutics.

bEHR: electronic health record.

cAI+: artificial intelligence plus (applications).

dGDPR: General Data Protection Regulation.

eIT: information technology.

fAPI: application programming interface.

gIoT: internet of things.

hFHIR: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources.


Cognitive impairment presents a significant global health challenge, affecting millions of individuals and placing a substantial burden on patients, caregivers, and health care systems. CDTx have emerged as a promising innovation in the assessment, intervention, and management of cognitive disorders. However, several critical challenges remain, including the need for rigorous clinical validation, the establishment of comprehensive regulatory frameworks, and the enhancement of patient acceptance and engagement to support widespread adoption. Furthermore, data security and ethical issues, data interoperability, and system integration must be addressed to ensure the seamless integration of CDTx into clinical practice.

Despite these challenges, the potential of CDTx to transform the care and management of cognitive impairment is undeniable. Innovations in digital cognitive assessment, intervention, and management and monitoring technologies offer unprecedented opportunities for early detection and more efficient, patient-centered care in health care delivery. The rapid advancement of AI technologies, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) and DeepSeek-R1 (DeepSeek), is expanding the role of DTx in cognitive health, enabling more personalized and scalable solutions.

Moving forward, a multistakeholder approach involving researchers, health care professionals, technology developers, policy makers, and regulators is essential. Future research should focus on developing standardized clinical validation methods, harmonizing regulatory frameworks globally, and enhancing patient and health care professional acceptability and engagement. Policy makers must prioritize the creation of supportive regulatory environments that balance innovation with patient safety while ensuring equitable access to these technologies. Clinically, integrating AI-driven tools into existing health care systems will require both technological advancements and operational adjustments to ensure effectiveness and scalability.

Ultimately, the integration of DTx into clinical practice for cognitive impairment holds significant potential to improve patient outcomes and to transform how cognitive health care is delivered, while also alleviating the burden on caregivers and health care systems worldwide. As AI continues to drive innovation, the development and scalable implementation of CDTx are poised to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of cognitive care. Coordinated, long-term, multistakeholder efforts will be essential to ensure their broad adoption and meaningful integration into routine clinical practice for cognitive impairment.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (project title: Research on the Current Situation and Development Trends of Elderly Disease in China; no. 2022YFC3603000). We also thank Dr Yao Yao for his valuable revision suggestions, and Zhenhan Yu and Meimei Luo for their support in preparing the figures.

Authors' Contributions

GYZ conducted the literature search, writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript. YH assisted with the literature search and manuscript writing. YT, LS, KR, and JW reviewed, edited, and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

  1. GBD 2016 Dementia Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. Jan 2019;18(1):88-106. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Nandi A, Counts N, Chen S, et al. Global and regional projections of the economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias from 2019 to 2050: a value of statistical life approach. EClinicalMedicine. Sep 2022;51:101580. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Shaaban CE. Individuals with dementia and populations with dementia. Cereb Circ Cogn Behav. 2024;6:100221. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Harris A, Sharma A. Estimating the future health and aged care expenditure in Australia with changes in morbidity. In: Callander E, editor. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0201697. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Tian S, Yang W, Grange JML, Wang P, Huang W, Ye Z. Smart healthcare: making medical care more intelligent. Global Health Journal. Sep 2019;3(3):62-65. [CrossRef]
  6. Bradwell HL, Edwards KJ, Winnington R, Thill S, Jones RB. Companion robots for older people: importance of user-centred design demonstrated through observations and focus groups comparing preferences of older people and roboticists in South West England. BMJ Open. Sep 26, 2019;9(9):e032468. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Understanding DTx. Digital Therapeutics Alliance. 2021. URL: https://dtxalliance.org/understanding-dtx/ [Accessed 2025-04-06]
  8. Baumel A, Muench F, Edan S, Kane JM. Objective user engagement with mental health apps: systematic search and panel-based usage analysis. J Med Internet Res. Sep 25, 2019;21(9):e14567. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Software as a Medical Device (SAMD): clinical evaluation - guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Dec 8, 2017. URL: https:/​/www.​fda.gov/​regulatory-information/​search-fda-guidance-documents/​software-medical-device-samd-clinical-evaluation [Accessed 2025-06-03]
  10. Ball K, Berch DB, Helmers KF, et al. Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. Nov 13, 2002;288(18):2271-2281. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Marin A, DeCaro R, Schiloski K, et al. Home-based electronic cognitive therapy in patients with Alzheimer disease: feasibility randomized controlled trial. JMIR Form Res. Sep 12, 2022;6(9):e34450. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Hill NTM, Mowszowski L, Naismith SL, Chadwick VL, Valenzuela M, Lampit A. Computerized cognitive training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJP. Apr 1, 2017;174(4):329-340. [CrossRef]
  13. Choukou MA, Olatoye F, Urbanowski R, Caon M, Monnin C. Digital health technology to support health care professionals and family caregivers caring for patients with cognitive impairment: scoping review. JMIR Ment Health. Jan 11, 2023;10:e40330. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Li PP, Zang GY, Liu T, Zhang Y, Qiu Y. Leveraging digital technology to enhance early prevention of dementia in developing regions: cognitive impairment screening program in Hainan. NEJM Catalyst. Mar 14, 2024;5(s1). [CrossRef]
  15. Sternin A, Burns A, Owen AM. Thirty-five years of computerized cognitive assessment of aging-where are we now? Diagnostics (Basel). Sep 6, 2019;9(3):114. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Tierney MC, Lermer MA. Computerized cognitive assessment in primary care to identify patients with suspected cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;20(3):823-832. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Yang Y, Lv C, Li H, et al. Community-based model for dementia risk screening: the Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation Initiative (BABRI) Brain Health System. J Am Med Dir Assoc. Jul 2021;22(7):1500-1506. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Holecki T, Rogalska A, Sobczyk K, Woźniak-Holecka J, Romaniuk P. Global elderly migrations and their impact on health care systems. Front Public Health. 2020;8:386. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Campos-Magdaleno M, Leiva D, Pereiro AX, et al. Changes in visual memory in mild cognitive impairment: a longitudinal study with CANTAB. Psychol Med. Oct 2021;51(14):2465-2475. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Myers JR, Glenn JM, Madero EN, et al. Asynchronous remote assessment for cognitive impairment: reliability verification of the neurotrack cognitive battery. JMIR Form Res. Feb 18, 2022;6(2):e34237. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Chan JYC, Wong A, Yiu B, et al. Electronic cognitive screen technology for screening older adults with dementia and mild cognitive impairment in a community setting: development and validation study. J Med Internet Res. Dec 18, 2020;22(12):e17332. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Eraslan Boz H, Limoncu H, Zygouris S, et al. A new tool to assess amnestic mild cognitive impairment in Turkish older adults: virtual supermarket (VSM). Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. Sep 2, 2020;27(5):639-653. [CrossRef]
  23. Nacimiento-García E, González-González CS, Colombo-Ruano L, Gutiérrez-Vela FL. Gamification and immersive experiences: a gamified approach for promoting active aging. Appl Sci (Basel). Nov 24, 2024;14(23):10880. [CrossRef]
  24. Seelye A, Mattek N, Sharma N, et al. Passive assessment of routine driving with unobtrusive sensors: a new approach for identifying and monitoring functional level in normal aging and mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;59(4):1427-1437. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Sevcik A, Rusko M. A systematic review of Alzheimer’s disease detection based on speech and natural language processing. IEEE Presented at: 2022 32nd International Conference RADIOELEKTRONIKA (RADIOELEKTRONIKA); Apr 21-22, 2022:01-05; Kosice, Slovakia. [CrossRef]
  26. Hannonen S, Andberg S, Kärkkäinen V, et al. Shortening of saccades as a possible easy-to-use biomarker to detect risk of Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2022;88(2):609-618. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. Vecchio F, Quaranta D, Miraglia F, et al. Neuronavigated magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive training for Alzheimer’s patients: an EEG graph study. Geroscience. Feb 2022;44(1):159-172. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Aramadaka S, Mannam R, Sankara Narayanan R, et al. Neuroimaging in Alzheimer’s disease for early diagnosis: a comprehensive review. Cureus. May 2023;15(5):e38544. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Johnson KA, Fox NC, Sperling RA, Klunk WE. Brain imaging in Alzheimer disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. Apr 2012;2(4):a006213. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Shukla A, Tiwari R, Tiwari S. Alzheimer’s disease detection from fused PET and MRI modalities using an ensemble classifier. MAKE. May 18, 2023;5(2):512-538. [CrossRef]
  31. Farooq A, Anwar S, Awais M, Rehman S. A deep CNN based multi-class classification of alzheimer’s disease using MRI. IEEE Presented at: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques (IST); Oct 18-20, 2017:1-6; Beijing. [CrossRef]
  32. Turkson RE, Qu H, Mawuli CB, Eghan MJ. Classification of Alzheimer’s disease using deep convolutional spiking neural network. Neural Process Lett. Aug 2021;53(4):2649-2663. [CrossRef]
  33. Raza HA, Ansari SU, Javed K, et al. A proficient approach for the classification of Alzheimer’s disease using a hybridization of machine learning and deep learning. Sci Rep. Dec 28, 2024;14(1):30925. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Cummings J. Lessons learned from Alzheimer disease: clinical trials with negative outcomes. Clin Transl Sci. Mar 2018;11(2):147-152. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  35. Klimova B, Maresova P. Computer-based training programs for older people with mild cognitive impairment and/or dementia. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:262. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Meiland F, Innes A, Mountain G, et al. Technologies to support community-dwelling persons with dementia: a position paper on issues regarding development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. Jan 16, 2017;4(1):e1. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. Embon-Magal S, Krasovsky T, Doron I, et al. The effect of co-dependent (thinking in motion [TIM]) versus single-modality (CogniFit) interventions on cognition and gait among community-dwelling older adults with cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled study. BMC Geriatr. Aug 31, 2022;22(1):720. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Chao YY, Scherer YK, Montgomery CA. Effects of using Nintendo Wii™ exergames in older adults: a review of the literature. J Aging Health. Apr 2015;27(3):379-402. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Benoit M, Guerchouche R, Petit PD, et al. Is it possible to use highly realistic virtual reality in the elderly? A feasibility study with image-based rendering. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2015;11:557-563. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Bauer ACM, Andringa G. The potential of immersive virtual reality for cognitive training in elderly. Gerontology. 2020;66(6):614-623. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Zhang T, Sui Y, Lu Q, et al. Effects of rTMS treatment on global cognitive function in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022;14:984708. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Sharbafshaaer M, Gigi I, Lavorgna L, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in mild cognitive impairment: effects on cognitive functions-a systematic review. J Clin Med. Sep 25, 2023;12(19):6190. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Hampstead BM, Lengu K, Goldenkoff ER, Vesia M. Noninvasive Brain Stimulation as a Rehabilitation Tool for Cognitive Impairment APA Handbook of Neuropsychology: Neuroscience and Neuromethods. Vol 2. American Psychological Association; 2023:449-472. [CrossRef] ISBN: 978-1-4338-4001-2
  44. Staresina BP. Coupled sleep rhythms for memory consolidation. Trends Cogn Sci (Regul Ed). Apr 2024;28(4):339-351. [CrossRef]
  45. Livingston G, Huntley J, Liu KY, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission. The Lancet. Aug 2024;404(10452):572-628. [CrossRef]
  46. Li JQ, Tan L, Wang HF, et al. Risk factors for predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. May 2016;87(5):476-484. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  47. Giehl C, Chatsatrian M, Vollmar HC, et al. Exploring accessibility, user experience and engagement of digital media among older patients with depression: a pilot and observational screening study protocol of the DiGA4Aged study. BMJ Open. Nov 7, 2024;14(11):e086779. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Kario K, Nomura A, Harada N, et al. Efficacy of a digital therapeutics system in the management of essential hypertension: the HERB-DH1 pivotal trial. Eur Heart J. Oct 21, 2021;42(40):4111-4122. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Brandt Å, Jensen MP, Søberg MS, Andersen SD, Sund T. Information and communication technology-based assistive technology to compensate for impaired cognition in everyday life: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. Oct 2020;15(7):810-824. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Zhang Y, Bornkamp N, Hivert MF, Oken E, James P. Using a consumer wearable activity monitoring device to study physical activity and sleep among adolescents in Project Viva: cohort study. JMIR Pediatr Parent. Feb 4, 2025;8:e59159. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Davies N, Schiowitz B, Rait G, Vickerstaff V, Sampson EL. Decision aids to support decision-making in dementia care: a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr. Oct 2019;31(10):1403-1419. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  52. Wisniewski H, Henson P, Torous J. Using a smartphone app to identify clinically relevant behavior trends via symptom report, cognition scores, and exercise levels: a case series. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:652. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Smailovic U, Koenig T, Kåreholt I, et al. Quantitative EEG power and synchronization correlate with Alzheimer’s disease CSF biomarkers. Neurobiol Aging. Mar 2018;63:88-95. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  54. Carrillo MC, Rowe CC, Szoeke C, et al. Research and standardization in Alzheimer’s trials: reaching international consensus. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. Mar 2013;9(2):160-168. [CrossRef]
  55. Yao H, Liao Z, Zhang X, et al. A comprehensive survey of the clinical trial landscape on digital therapeutics. Heliyon. Aug 30, 2024;10(16):e36115. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  56. Adu-Brimpong J, Pugh J, Darko DA, Shieh L. Examining diversity in digital therapeutics clinical trials: descriptive analysis. J Med Internet Res. Aug 2, 2023;25:e37447. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  57. Hong C, Tai T, Zhou J, et al. Effect of home-based and remotely supervised combined exercise and cognitive intervention on older adults with mild cognitive impairment (COGITO): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. Aug 6, 2024;14(8):e081122. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  58. Zhu W, Tang H, Zhang H, et al. Predicting risk of Alzheimer’s diseases and related dementias with AI foundation model on electronic health records. medRxiv. Apr 27, 2024:2024.04.26.24306180. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Mezei F, Horváth K, Pálfi M, Lovas K, Ádám I, Túri G. International practices in health technology assessment and public financing of digital health technologies: recommendations for Hungary. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1197949. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. Dang A, Arora D, Rane P. Role of digital therapeutics and the changing future of healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. May 2020;9(5):2207-2213. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  61. Mantovani A, Leopaldi C, Nighswander CM, Di Bidino R. Access and reimbursement pathways for digital health solutions and in vitro diagnostic devices: current scenario and challenges. Front Med Technol. 2023;5:1101476. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  62. Patel NA, Butte AJ. Characteristics and challenges of the clinical pipeline of digital therapeutics. NPJ Digit Med. Dec 11, 2020;3(1):159. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  63. Wilhelm S, Weingarden H, Ladis I, Braddick V, Shin J, Jacobson NC. Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the digital age: presidential address. Behav Ther. Jan 2020;51(1):1-14. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  64. Zovi A, Ferrara F, Gelmi M, et al. Digital therapeutics as a new weapon against diseases: focus on the current European legislation and possible therapeutic strategies. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2025;22(2):141-147. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  65. Wang C, Lee C, Shin H. Digital therapeutics from bench to bedside. NPJ Digit Med. Mar 10, 2023;6(1):38. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  66. Coder M, McBride L, McClenahan S. Core elements of national policy for digital health technology evidence and access. NPJ Digit Med. Aug 13, 2024;7(1):212. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  67. Rajendran A, Kella A, Narayanasamy D. The revolution of digital therapeutics (DTx) in the pharmaceutical industry and their quality impacts. Cureus. Aug 2024;16(8):e66792. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  68. Coder M. Building the digital therapeutic industry: regulation, evaluation, and implementation. In: Digital Therapeutics for Mental Health and Addiction. Elsevier; 2023:165-177. [CrossRef] ISBN: 978-0-323-90045-4
  69. Oh S, Choi J, Han DH, Kim E. Effects of game-based digital therapeutics on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents as assessed by parents or teachers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. Feb 2024;33(2):481-493. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  70. EMA regulatory science to 2025: strategic reflection. European Medicines Agency. 2020. URL: https:/​/www.​ema.europa.eu/​en/​documents/​regulatory-procedural-guideline/​ema-regulatory-science-2025-strategic-reflection_en.​pdf [Accessed 2025-06-02]
  71. Reference guide for application scenarios of artificial intelligence in the health sector. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. 2024. URL: https://www.nhc.gov.cn/guihuaxxs/c100133/202411/3dee425b8dc34f739d63483c4e5c334c.shtml [Accessed 2025-06-06]
  72. Sverdlov O, van Dam J, Hannesdottir K, Thornton‐Wells T. Digital therapeutics: an integral component of digital innovation in drug development. Clin Pharma and Therapeutics. Jul 2018;104(1):72-80. [CrossRef]
  73. Bhatia A, Matthan R, Khanna T, Balsari S. Regulatory sandboxes: a cure for mHealth pilotitis? J Med Internet Res. Sep 15, 2020;22(9):e21276. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  74. Serres F, Chan E, Barzey V, Pham N, Rose J, Bajre M. MSR14 lean assessment process methodology for evaluating the clinical need and assessing technology acceptance in the context of adopting a new digital therapeutic for depression in routine clinical practice in the NHS in England. Value Health. Dec 2024;27(12):S440. [CrossRef]
  75. Carvalho SA, Matos M, Ferreira N, Graham CD. Editorial: contextual-behavioral approaches to improving well-being and mental health in chronic physical illness. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1497106. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  76. Hackett K, Lehman S, Divers R, et al. Remind me to remember: a pilot study of a novel smartphone reminder application for older adults with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychol Rehabil. Jan 2022;32(1):22-50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  77. Nuseibeh BZ, Johns SA, Shih PC, Lewis GF, Gowan TM, Jordan EJ. Co-designing the MOSAIC mHealth app with breast cancer survivors: user-centered design approach. JMIR Form Res. Dec 9, 2024;8:e59426. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  78. Langford T, Fleming V, Upton E, Doogan C, Leff A, Romano DM. Design innovation for engaging and accessible digital aphasia therapies: framework analysis of the iReadMore app co-design process. JMIR Neurotech. Oct 18, 2022;1(1):e39855. [CrossRef]
  79. Vial S, Boudhraâ S, Dumont M, Tremblay M, Riendeau S. Developing a mobile app with a human-centered design lens to improve access to mental health care (Mentallys Project): protocol for an initial co-design process. JMIR Res Protoc. Aug 22, 2023;12:e47220. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  80. Wong S, Davis A, Selby PR, et al. Application of user-centered co-design principles to address barriers in therapeutic drug monitoring. Ther Drug Monit. 2022. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  81. Strauss G, Flannery JE, Vierra E, et al. Meaningful engagement: a crossfunctional framework for digital therapeutics. Front Digit Health. 2022;4:890081. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  82. Asif HM, Nawaz A, Daniyal M. Editorial: changing trends of precision medicine in diabetes. Front Med. Jan 21, 2025;12:1499934. [CrossRef]
  83. Pahune S, Rewatkar N. The expanding function of generative AI and large language models in healthcare. IJRASET. Preprint posted online on Nov 30, 2024. [CrossRef]
  84. Zaeem RN, Barber KS. The effect of the GDPR on privacy policies: recent progress and future promise. ACM Trans Manage Inf Syst. Mar 31, 2021;12(1):1-20. [CrossRef]
  85. Manole A, Cârciumaru R, Brînzaș R, Manole F. An exploratory investigation of chatbot applications in anxiety management: a focus on personalized interventions. Information. Dec 29, 2024;16(1):11. [CrossRef]
  86. Singhal A, Neveditsin N, Tanveer H, Mago V. Toward fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in AI for social media and health care: scoping review. JMIR Med Inform. Apr 3, 2024;12:e50048. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  87. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. Oct 25, 2019;366(6464):447-453. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  88. Shin HJ, Cho IT, Choi WS, Kim HR, Kang MB, Yang WJ. Digital therapeutics in Korea: current status, challenges, and future directions - a narrative review. J Yeungnam Med Sci. 2025;42:8. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  89. Gupta K, Metaverse MS. Revolutionizing healthcare in a virtual realm. In: Wason R, Arora P, Nand P, Jain V, Kukreja V, editors. Blockchain‐Enabled Solutions for the Pharmaceutical Industry. 1st ed. Wiley; 2025:529-543. [CrossRef] ISBN: 978-1-394-28793-2
  90. Kilintzis V, Chouvarda I, Beredimas N, Natsiavas P, Maglaveras N. Supporting integrated care with a flexible data management framework built upon Linked Data, HL7 FHIR and ontologies. J Biomed Inform. Jun 2019;94:103179. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  91. Masuda Y, Zimmermann A, Viswanathan M, Bass M, Nakamura O, Yamamoto S. Adaptive enterprise architecture for the digital healthcare industry: a digital platform for drug development. Information. Feb 2021;12(2):67. [CrossRef]
  92. Tsiouris KM, Gatsios D, Tsakanikas V, et al. Designing interoperable telehealth platforms: bridging IoT devices with cloud infrastructures. Enterprise Information Systems. Sep 13, 2020;14(8):1194-1218. [CrossRef]
  93. Bathelt F, Lorenz S, Weidner J, Sedlmayr M, Reinecke I. Application of modular architectures in the medical domain - a scoping review. J Med Syst. Feb 18, 2025;49(1):27. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  94. Ichikawa D, Kashiyama M, Ueno T. Tamper-resistant mobile health using blockchain technology. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 26, 2017;5(7):e111. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  95. Fischer C. Open ecosystem through secure plug and play interoperability: an overview. J Diabetes Sci Technol. May 2025;19(3):628-641. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  96. Thompson J, Matlock D, McIlvennan C, et al. Rationale and design of the implementation and interaction of clinician and patient-facing tools aiming to intensify neurohormonal medicines for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (I-I-CAPTAIN-HF) trial: novel delivery science to overcome therapeutic inertia. J Card Fail. Jan 2025;31(1):238. [CrossRef]
  97. Mandel JC, Kreda DA, Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Ramoni RB. SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Sep 2016;23(5):899-908. [CrossRef] [Medline]


AD: Alzheimer disease
AI: artificial intelligence
CDTx: cognitive digital therapeutics
DTx: digital therapeutics
EEG: electroencephalography
EHR: electronic health record
EL: ensemble learning
FHIR: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources
MRI: magnetic resonance imaging
PAS: paired associative stimulation
VR: virtual reality


Edited by Taiane de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 10.03.25; peer-reviewed by Ayomide Ishola, Mahendra Krishnapatnam, Samuel Dada; final revised version received 19.04.25; accepted 21.04.25; published 12.06.25.

Copyright

©Grace Yuange Zang, Keqin Rao, Jing Wu, Yunhan He, Yi Tang, Leiyu Shi. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 12.6.2025.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.