Accessibility settings

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Digital Health Reviews (3882) Clinical Informatics (2415) Clinical Information and Decision Making (3935) Decision Support for Health Professionals (2381) Artificial Intelligence (5074)

Published on in Vol 28 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/103362, first published .
Nurse shows patient digital health data on tablet, with AI health icons

AI-Enabled Patient Profiling for Personalized Nursing Care and Health Support: Scoping Review

AI-Enabled Patient Profiling for Personalized Nursing Care and Health Support: Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

Jingyan Zhang1 Author Orcid Image ;   Fengyi Zhang2 Author Orcid Image ;   Youpeng Guo1 Author Orcid Image ;   Jingwen Zhang1 Author Orcid Image ;   Hongmei Zhong1 Author Orcid Image ;   Xuemei Guo1 Author Orcid Image ;   Min Tan1, 3 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Review

    1Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China

    2Xiangjiang Laboratory, Changsha, Hunan, China

    3Key Laboratory of Digital-Intelligent Disease Surveillance and Health Governance, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Min Tan, PhD

    Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College

    Department of Nursing, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College

    No. 1 Maoyuan South Road, Shunqing District

    Nanchong, Sichuan

    China

    Phone: 86 817 226 2113

    Email: mintan@nsmc.edu.cn


    Background: AI-enabled patient profiling has been proposed to organize heterogeneous patient data and support personalized nursing care and health support. Given the growing use of AI, machine learning, large language models (LLMs), digital phenotyping, and digital twins in health care, it is important to clarify how patient profiling has been conceptualized, applied, and evaluated in nursing-relevant contexts.

    Objective: This scoping review aimed to examine and report the available evidence on AI-enabled patient profiling for personalized nursing care and health support.

    Methods: This scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). Chinese and English databases were searched from inception to May 18, 2026, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase. Eligible studies used AI or computational intelligence methods to construct, classify, apply, validate, or evaluate patient profiles or related patient representations relevant to personalized nursing care or health support. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed full texts, and charted data using a predefined form. Data were synthesized descriptively and narratively using an input-process-output framework.

    Results: A total of 61 studies were included. AI-enabled patient profiling was represented through patient profiles, patient or user personas, digital phenotypes, patient segments, clinical subtypes, digital twins, and LLM-enabled personalization. Included studies used diverse data sources, including electronic health records, nursing records, patient-reported outcomes, questionnaires, mobile app data, wearable and sensor data, engagement logs, and textual or conversational data. Common AI approaches included machine learning, clustering, deep learning, natural language processing, recommender systems, knowledge graphs, digital twin modeling, and LLMs. Applications focused on personalized education, self-management support, rehabilitation, chronic disease management, remote monitoring, decision support, follow-up care, and shared decision-making. Most studies evaluated algorithmic performance, feasibility, usability, or system development, whereas fewer studies examined profile validity, actionability, equity, workflow integration, or long-term nursing-sensitive and patient-centered outcomes.

    Conclusions: Existing evidence positions AI-enabled patient profiling as an emerging data-to-action mechanism for personalized nursing care and health support rather than as a mature clinical intervention. Future research should strengthen conceptual clarity, validate the profile, establish explicit pathways linking profiles to actions, incorporate nurse and patient involvement, assess equity and safety, and evaluate implementation in real-world nursing settings.

    Trial Registration: OSF Registry mey4u; https://osf.io/mey4u

    J Med Internet Res 2026;28:e103362

    doi:10.2196/103362

    Keywords

    artificial intelligence; AI; machine learning; nursing care; patient profiling; personalized care; digital health; clinical decision support; patient-centered care 


    Background

    AI, machine learning, and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in health care to analyze clinical, behavioral, and patient-generated data; support risk stratification; inform decision-making; and adapt communication for clinical or patient-facing contexts [1,2]. In nursing, AI has been identified as a priority for research, education, leadership, and practice, but current evidence remains concentrated on early technology development, model testing, and feasibility work rather than sustained implementation or measurable effects on practice [3,4].

    This development intersects with a broader shift toward personalized and person-centered care. Precision medicine emphasizes tailoring prevention and treatment by integrating biological, clinical, and contextual data [5], whereas person-centered care emphasizes patients’ values, preferences, capabilities, and lived experience [6]. For nursing, the practical question is therefore not only whether data-driven tools can classify patients, but also whether they can support holistic assessment, care planning, education, follow-up, and evaluation without reducing patients to isolated risks or diagnostic labels [7].

    Patient profiling offers 1 possible mechanism for connecting heterogeneous patient information with individualized care. Related concepts include patient profiles, user profiles, patient personas, patient segmentation, and care needs profiles. Personas can represent patient perspectives in user-centered service or intervention design [8], whereas patient segmentation can support integrated care by targeting support to groups with shared needs or characteristics [9].

    Digital and computational approaches have broadened profiling beyond static descriptors. Digital phenotyping uses data from smartphones, wearables, and other technologies to characterize behavior, functioning, and health states [10], and machine learning is increasingly used to identify these patterns [11]. Digital twins and LLM-enabled systems extend profiling into simulation, decision support, and personalized communication, while also raising questions about validity, interpretability, privacy, and accountability [2,12].

    Despite these developments, the evidence remains fragmented across nursing, informatics, rehabilitation, chronic disease management, behavioral health, and digital health research. Existing nursing reviews have mapped broad AI applications, including prediction, monitoring, decision support, documentation, and communication technologies [3,4], whereas other reviews have examined digital phenotyping or personas separately [8,11]. Less is known about how AI-enabled profiling connects patient-related data with personalized nursing assessment, education, self-management, rehabilitation, follow-up, and health support actions.

    Given the emerging and heterogeneous nature of this field, a scoping review was appropriate to clarify key concepts and identify knowledge gaps.

    Review Questions

    This review addressed the following questions: (1) How is AI-enabled patient profiling conceptualized? (2) Which data sources and AI methods are used? (3) How are the profiles applied in nursing and health support? and (4) How are the profiles evaluated?


    Overview

    This scoping review mapped evidence on AI-enabled patient profiling for personalized nursing and health support. A scoping review design was appropriate because the topic is broad; conceptually heterogeneous; and includes diverse study designs, technologies, and application contexts [13-15]. The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guidance [16,17].

    Protocol and Registration

    The review protocol was retrospectively registered on the OSF after study selection and data charting had commenced [18]; therefore, registration should be interpreted as retrospective documentation rather than prospective registration. After retrospective registration, no changes were made to the final database sources, search date, core eligibility criteria, or main data-charting domains. Minor refinements were limited to clarifying operational coding labels during synthesis, including nursing relevance levels and evidence maturity ratings, and these refinements did not alter the included study set. Full search strategies; the data-charting form; full-text exclusion reasons, study characteristics, and analytic coding; and the PRISMA-ScR checklist are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1, Multimedia Appendix 2, Multimedia Appendix 3 [19-79], and Multimedia Appendix 4, respectively.

    Information Sources

    Chinese and English databases were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Chinese databases included the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). English databases included PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase. No publication date restriction was applied. Limits were not used for study design or publication year. Records were eligible only when published in Chinese or English and when the publication type met the source criteria; reviews, protocols, editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts, preprints, and records with insufficient information for data charting were excluded during screening or full-text assessment. Preliminary scoping searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify terminology used in titles, abstracts, and indexing records. Final search terms were refined through discussion by the review team. An information specialist or librarian was not formally consulted.

    Backward and forward citation searching was not performed; study identification relied exclusively on the predefined electronic database searches.

    Search Strategy

    The search strategy combined 3 concept blocks using Boolean operators: AI terms, patient profiling terms, and nursing or personalized care terms. Within each block, synonyms were combined with OR; the 3 blocks were then combined with AND. The AI block included terms such as “generative AI,” “large language model,” ChatGPT, “artificial intelligence,” “machine learning,” and “deep learning.” The profiling block included terms such as persona, “patient persona,” “user persona,” “patient profiling,” “patient profile,” “patient segmentation,” “user modeling,” and “patient typology.” The nursing or personalized care block included terms such as nurs*, “personalized care,” “individualized care,” “precision nursing,” “precision care,” and “tailored intervention.” Quotation marks were used for exact phrases where supported by the database, and truncation was used for nurs* to capture nursing-related variants. Controlled vocabulary terms were used only where they directly corresponded to the original search concepts, including AI, machine learning, deep learning, LLMs, generative AI, and nursing care in PubMed. Terms were adapted for each database according to database-specific syntax and searchable fields. The exact database-specific search strings are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Eligibility Criteria

    Population and Context

    Eligibility criteria were structured using the population, concept, and context framework recommended for scoping reviews [16]. The population comprised patients, health service users, caregivers, or individuals receiving health-related support. The context comprised nursing or health support, including patient education, self-management, rehabilitation, chronic disease management, remote monitoring, follow-up care, decision support, shared decision-making, digital health, mobile health, and telehealth. Studies focused only on professionals or students were excluded unless they addressed patient profiling for patient care or personalized health support.

    Concept

    The concept of interest was AI-enabled patient profiling, defined as the use of patient-related data and AI or computational intelligence methods to construct, classify, represent, apply, or evaluate individualized or group-based patient representations for personalized nursing or health support. Relevant concepts included patient profiles, personas, digital phenotypes, segmentation, clinical subtypes, risk or care needs profiles, digital twins, individualized patient models, and personalized recommendations.

    Types of Sources

    Studies were included if they (1) used AI, machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, LLMs, recommender systems, knowledge graphs, clustering, digital twin modeling, or related computational intelligence methods; (2) constructed, classified, applied, validated, or evaluated patient profiles or related representations; and (3) were relevant to personalized nursing, patient education, self-management, rehabilitation, follow-up, decision support, or other health support applications.

    Studies were excluded if they addressed diagnosis or outcome prediction without patient profiling or related representations; did not involve AI or computational intelligence; lacked relevance to nursing or health support; focused only on virtual patients for professional education; were reviews, protocols, editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts, or preprints; or provided insufficient information for data charting.

    Conceptual Boundary

    A conceptual boundary was applied to distinguish AI-enabled patient profiling from adjacent forms of prediction, personalization, and persona development (Table 1).

    Table 1. Conceptual boundary of AI-enabled patient profiling.
    Evidence typesInclusion decisionRationale
    AI-generated patient representation linked to nursing or health support actionIncludedThis was core AI-enabled patient profiling evidence because patient-related data are translated into an interpretable profile, segment, phenotype, model, or recommendation for care support.
    Prediction model with an interpretable profile, subgroup, or care implicationIncluded when linked to profilingThis was included only when the output supports patient representation, subgroup identification, or tailored support rather than prediction alone.
    Diagnosis or outcome prediction without patient profile representationExcludedPrediction alone was not considered patient profiling when it did not produce a profile, segment, phenotype, or action-oriented representation.
    Large language model–generated education or communication without patient data–based profilingExcluded or treated as borderlinePersonalization alone was insufficient unless patient information was used to construct or apply a profile-related representation.
    Persona studies without AI or computational methodsExcludedPersonas were relevant only when they were developed, validated, or applied using AI or computational intelligence methods.

    Selection of Sources of Evidence

    All records were imported into EndNote (Clarivate) for automatic deduplication and manual checking. Chinese- and English-language records were managed separately, and potential duplicate records were checked using title, author, year, journal, and DOI information where available. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, retrieved potentially relevant full texts, and independently assessed final eligibility. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus, with consultation with another team member when needed. Full-text exclusion reasons are provided in Multimedia Appendix 3. Selection was reported using the PRISMA-ScR flow structure [17].

    Data-Charting Process

    A standardized data-charting form was developed from the review aim, research questions, and eligibility criteria. The form was piloted on included studies and refined before formal extraction [16]. Data charting was performed independently and cross-checked by another reviewer for accuracy and completeness. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. The data-charting form and detailed study characteristics are provided in Multimedia Appendices 2 and 3.

    Data Items

    Extracted items included bibliographic details, design, population or setting, sample or data size, context, profiling concept, data sources, AI methods, profiling outputs, nursing or health support applications, evaluation approaches, nursing relevance, and ethical or implementation issues.

    Nursing relevance levels were assigned during data charting and cross-checked during synthesis. Disagreements were resolved through discussion, with attention to whether profiling outputs were linked to nursing assessment, education, monitoring, follow-up, rehabilitation, care planning, or decision support.

    Critical Appraisal of Individual Sources of Evidence

    Formal critical appraisal was not conducted because the review mapped concepts, methods, applications, and gaps rather than intervention effectiveness [15].

    Synthesis of Results

    Data were synthesized using descriptive numerical summaries and narrative synthesis, as recommended for scoping reviews of heterogeneous evidence [14]. Frequencies summarized publication characteristics, evidence relevance levels, profiling concepts, AI methods, and application contexts. Because categories were not mutually exclusive, individual studies could contribute to more than 1 category.

    Narrative synthesis was guided by an input-process-output framework. Inputs referred to patient-related data, including electronic health records, patient-reported outcomes, questionnaires, behavioral data, mobile app data, wearable and sensor data, and text or conversational data. Processes referred to AI or computational methods, including machine learning, clustering, deep learning, natural language processing, recommender systems, knowledge graphs, digital twin modeling, and LLMs. Outputs referred to profiles, personas, digital phenotypes, segments, clinical subtypes, care needs or risk profiles, individualized models, digital twins, and personalized recommendations. The synthesis focused on conceptual forms, data sources and methods, applications, and validation and implementation gaps.

    To construct the evidence gap map, included studies were cross-tabulated by profiling form and health support context. For visualization only, nursing relevance was mapped as level 3 for 0, level 2 for 0.5, and level 1 for 1. The mapped values were unitless coding scores and did not represent measurement units; when multiple studies occupied the same cell, the mean mapped value determined the bubble color. This color scale was not used as a methodological quality or certainty-of-evidence measure.

    Ethical Considerations

    Ethics approval was not required because this review synthesized data from previously published studies and did not involve direct contact with human participants or the collection of primary individual-level data.


    Included Studies

    Database searching identified 1172 records: PubMed (n=131, 11.2%), CINAHL (n=40, 3.4%), Web of Science (n=707, 60.3%), Embase (n=265, 22.6%), CNKI (n=10, 0.9%), Wanfang Data (n=10, 0.9%), VIP Database (n=5, 0.4%), and CBM (n=4, 0.3%). After 106 duplicate records were removed, 1066 records remained for title and abstract screening. During title and abstract screening, 960 records were excluded as not relevant to AI, patient profiling, personalized nursing, or health support. The remaining 106 reports were retrieved and assessed for full-text eligibility. After full-text assessment, 45 reports were excluded for specified reasons, and 61 studies were included in the review. The study selection process is presented in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) flow diagram of study selection. CBM: Chinese Biomedical Literature Database; CNKI: China National Knowledge Infrastructure.

    Characteristics of Included Studies

    The included studies addressed chronic disease management, rehabilitation, cancer care, cardiovascular care, diabetes management, mental health support, older adult care, perioperative and reconstructive care, remote monitoring, digital health, health education, and self-management. For example, 1 study applied an intelligent continuous care model during skin expansion in auricular reconstruction [80]. Designs included randomized and quasiexperimental studies, pre-post studies, feasibility and usability studies, observational and retrospective studies, system development studies, mixed methods studies, and methodological studies. Some studies explicitly addressed nursing functions such as assessment, symptom monitoring, education, adherence support, and follow-up [19]. Others addressed care planning, decision support, engagement, or individualized intervention delivery that was transferable to nursing and health support [20,21]. Detailed characteristics are provided in Multimedia Appendix 3.

    Additional included studies represented eating disorder assessment, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence support, type 1 diabetes phenotyping, precision symptom management, assisted living, sleep apnea follow-up, remote health monitoring, dietary lapse prediction, digital twins, emergency nursing heart failure subtyping, home-based care for older adults, low back pain stratification, behavioral change recommender systems, poststroke smart home monitoring, health literacy profiling, intelligent whole-process health education for day surgery, eHealth user profiling, cognitive health app design, AI-generated self-management guidance, digital mental health recommendation, smoking cessation messaging, medication management, fibromyalgia clustering, oncology care with LLMs, activity-based behavior modeling, embedded user profile service recommendation, and geriatric care plan revision [51-79].

    To clarify the degree to which the evidence related to nursing practice, the included studies were coded into 3 levels of nursing relevance before narrative synthesis. Level 1 indicated direct nursing or nurse-relevant care support evidence; level 2 indicated transferable health support evidence; and level 3 indicated methodological profiling evidence with plausible relevance to future personalized health support. These levels were used to interpret applicability rather than to assess methodological quality. The distribution and operational definitions of these levels are summarized in Table 2.

    Table 2. Nursing relevance levels of included evidence.
    LevelsOperational definitionsNumber of studiesRepresentative examples
    Level 1Direct nursing or nurse-relevant care support evidence addressing nursing practice, nursing-sensitive outcomes, nurse-led interventions, nursing decision support, or direct care processes31[19,20,80]
    Level 2Transferable health support evidence addressing education, rehabilitation, self-management, follow-up, remote monitoring, or shared decision-making without explicit nursing leadership15[21-24]
    Level 3Methodological profiling evidence focused primarily on AI modeling, segmentation, phenotyping, or representation learning, with plausible relevance to personalized nursing or health support15[25-27,81]

    On the basis of the study-level coding in Multimedia Appendix 3, 31 studies were classified as level 1, 15 as level 2, and 15 as level 3. Because not all level 1 studies were nurse-led, this category was interpreted as directly relevant to nursing or care support processes rather than as exclusively nursing-led evidence. Study-level mapping of profiling concepts, AI methods, nursing or health support applications, evaluation approaches, and evidence relevance levels is provided in Multimedia Appendix 3. The most common contexts were clinical nursing or care support (n=17), digital health or personalized health support (n=12), older adult or long-term care (n=10), and chronic disease or self-management (n=10). The most frequent profiling approaches were patient profile, user model, or personalized patient model approaches (n=42), followed by segmentation or clinical subtyping (n=11), LLM-enabled personalization (n=4), digital phenotyping (n=3), digital twin or individualized models (n=3), and personas (n=3). Common AI approaches were machine learning or clustering (n=26), computational modeling and personalization (n=20), recommender or decision support systems (n=8), LLMs or generative AI (n=6), digital twin modeling (n=3), sensor or Internet of Things analytics (n=3), natural language processing or text mining (n=2), and knowledge graphs (n=1).

    Evidence Gap Map

    Figure 2 maps the distribution of included studies across profiling forms and health support contexts. Bubble size represents the number of studies in each profiling form-context combination, and bubble color reflects nursing relevance. Evidence was concentrated in patient profile or model approaches, particularly across clinical care, digital health, chronic disease, and older adult care contexts. In contrast, patient or user persona, digital twin or individual model, and LLM-enabled personalization approaches were represented in fewer contexts. Blank cells indicate profiling form-context combinations for which no included studies were identified.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Evidence gap map of AI-enabled patient profiling across profiling forms and health support contexts. Bubble size represents the number of included studies. Bubble color represents nursing relevance; when multiple studies occupied the same cell, the mean nursing relevance level was used for color encoding. Blank cells indicate that no included study was identified for that combination. LLM: large language model.

    Review Findings

    Conceptual Forms of AI-Enabled Patient Profiling

    Included studies used diverse and overlapping terms for AI-enabled patient profiling, with differences in granularity, stability, and actionability. Examples included the use of nursing knowledge and machine learning to identify high-need primary care patients [21], data-driven persona validation [27], digital engagement phenotypes in diabetes prevention [26], and digital twins for shared decision-making in knee osteoarthritis care [22]. Across these terms, the shared function was to transform patient-related information into structured representations that could support individualized assessment, education, decision-making, or health support. These conceptual forms and their levels of representation are summarized in Table 3.

    Table 3. Conceptual forms of AI-enabled patient profiling.
    Profiling formsCore meaningLevels of representation
    Patient profile or profilingA structured representation of individual patient characteristics used to support personalized care or health supportIndividual-level
    Patient or user personaA typical user or patient representation that reflects needs, preferences, barriers, or engagement patternsGroup-level or archetype
    Digital phenotypeA behavioral, physiological, or interaction pattern captured through digital technologiesDynamic individual- or group-level
    Patient segmentation or clinical subtypeA data-driven subgroup with shared risks, needs, behaviors, or response patternsGroup-level
    Digital twinA dynamic individualized model used for simulation, prediction, or shared decision-makingDynamic individual-level
    LLMa-enabled personalizationThe use of LLMs to interpret patient information or generate tailored communication or supportIndividualized communication or recommendation

    aLLM: large language model.

    Patient profiles were structured representations based on demographic, clinical, behavioral, psychosocial, or contextual information [19,80]. Personas translated patient needs, preferences, barriers, and engagement patterns into user-centered representations for intervention design [29,30]. Digital phenotypes captured behavioral, physiological, or interaction patterns generated through digital technologies [31,32]. Segmentation and clinical subtyping classified patients into groups with distinct risks, phenotypes, or care needs [33,34,81]. Digital twins extended profiling toward dynamic simulation and shared decision-making [22], whereas LLM-enabled personalization emerged as a means of interpreting unstructured information and generating tailored communication [35-37].

    Data Sources and AI Methods Used to Construct Patient Profiles

    AI-enabled patient profiles used heterogeneous and often multimodal data. Clinical data, including electronic health records, diagnoses, medications, laboratory results, nursing records, and service use data, supported risk profiles, clinical subtypes, and patient segments [19,20,34]. Patient-reported outcomes and questionnaires captured symptoms, quality of life, self-efficacy, health literacy, preferences, and perceived needs [25,30,38]. Behavioral, engagement, wearable, sensor, textual, and conversational data enabled dynamic profiling for self-management, remote monitoring, rehabilitation, older adult care, and communication support [37,39,40].

    Methods reflected the intended profiling purpose. Unsupervised learning and clustering were used to identify subgroups or phenotypes [31]. Supervised machine learning classified risk, adherence, or recommendation categories, while deep learning and natural language processing supported sequential, multimodal, or text-based profiling [22,28,41]. Recommender systems, knowledge graphs, decision support systems, digital twins, and LLMs linked patient features to tailored education, nursing recommendations, caregiver support, shared decision-making, or conversational support [37,42,43]. Figure 3 summarizes the input-process-output framework linking patient-related data, AI processing, profile outputs, nurse mediation, and personalized support actions, with cross-cutting evaluation and governance.

    ‎
    Figure 3. Input-process-output framework for AI-enabled patient profiling in personalized nursing and health support. Patient-related data are processed using AI methods to generate profile outputs, which require nurse mediation before being translated into personalized support actions. Cross-cutting evaluation and governance should address validity, usability, actionability, workflow integration, equity, safety, privacy, accountability, and patient-centered outcomes. EHR: electronic health record; LLM: large language model; NLP: natural language processing; PRO: patient-reported outcome.

    Applications in Personalized Nursing and Health Support

    AI-enabled patient profiling was applied to personalized education, self-management, rehabilitation, chronic disease management, remote monitoring, decision support, follow-up, and shared decision-making. In education, profiles informed the content, format, timing, or language of support according to patient characteristics, health literacy, preferences, or communication needs. Examples included tailored smoking cessation messaging [42], machine learning–based personalization of web-based health content [44], a voice-based diet assistant for caregivers of people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias [43], personas for eHealth self-management among people living with HIV [30], and emerging LLM or multilingual care agent approaches to personalized information support [37,45].

    Profiling also supported self-management and behavioral tailoring. Decision support and recommender systems personalized self-management support for congestive heart failure, web-based content, smoking cessation, and obesity interventions [24,32,42,44]. Dynamic profiling and personalized messaging supported adherence to cardiac rehabilitation [25], while patient profiling and adherence prediction informed personalized telephone follow-up in obstructive sleep apnea care [23]. Rehabilitation examples included a patient profiling–based rehabilitation nursing platform for spinal cord injury [46], unsupervised profiling of recovery needs after a mild stroke [38], and digital twin decision support for shared decision-making in knee osteoarthritis care [22].

    In chronic disease management and remote monitoring, profiles derived from clinical, behavioral, or sensor data supported risk identification, engagement tracking, and recognition of support needs. Digital engagement phenotypes informed tailoring of diabetes prevention and obesity interventions [26,32]. Ecologic momentary assessment supported personalized timing of physical activity [47], and in-home conversational or behavioral monitoring informed follow-up for daily functioning [40]. Decision support and segmentation studies identified high-need patients or groups that could be mapped to care plans, nursing recommendations, postacute services, or home health support [34,48].

    Overall, the applications followed a profile-to-action logic in which patient data were translated into patient representations and then into tailored education, monitoring, rehabilitation, decision support, follow-up, or shared decision-making. Table 4 summarizes the main profile-to-action pathways and the maturity of the available evidence.

    Table 4. Evidence maturity of profile-to-action pathwaysa.
    Profile-to-action pathwaysTechnical validationUsability or feasibilityClinical outcome evaluationWorkflow implementationEquity or safety assessment
    Risk profile → follow-up prioritizationModerateLimitedLimitedLimitedRare
    Engagement phenotype → tailored coachingModerateModerateLimitedRareRare
    Care needs profile → rehabilitation supportLimitedLimitedLimitedRareRare
    Digital twin → shared decision-makingLimitedLimitedEmergingRareRare
    Large language model personalization → tailored educationEmergingEmergingRareRareRare

    aEvidence maturity ratings were assigned interpretively during synthesis and were not intended as formal risk-of-bias or certainty-of-evidence ratings. For each profile-to-action pathway, “moderate” indicated that several studies in the included evidence base reported relevant technical validation and at least 1 additional form of evaluation such as usability, feasibility, or clinical outcome assessment; “limited” indicated that evidence was present but sparse, indirect, or concentrated in early development or single-context studies; “emerging” indicated very recent or early evidence with few empirical evaluations; and “rare” indicated that few or no studies explicitly assessed that translational dimension. The ratings were derived from the study-level coding in Multimedia Appendix 3, including profiling concept, AI method, application focus, evaluation approach, nursing relevance level, and reported ethical or implementation issues.

    Validation, Evaluation, and Implementation Gaps

    Evaluation approaches varied across studies. Algorithmic validation commonly used predictive metrics such as clustering fit, accuracy, or model discrimination [31,32]. However, technical performance alone did not demonstrate whether a profile was clinically useful or actionable for nurses. Some studies linked decision support or profiling outputs to care planning, identification of high-need patients, follow-up services, or postacute care needs [23,24,34].

    A major gap concerned the validity and reproducibility of profiles. Some studies used data-driven validation, expert review, patient feedback, or human-centered design methods [29,30], but external validation, interrater consistency, and cross-system reproducibility were limited. Profile-to-strategy matching was also underdeveloped. Although some studies linked personas, contextual triggers, recommender systems, knowledge graphs, or causal models to tailored support [49,82], matching rules were rarely formalized or tested across patients, nurses, and settings.

    Clinical and patient-reported outcome evaluations were less common than technical validation. Some studies suggested benefits for rehabilitation, decision quality, adherence, self-management, caregiver support, or patient experience [23,25,32]. However, the evidence was limited by few controlled studies, short follow-up, single-center designs, and heterogeneous outcomes. Usability, acceptability, patient experience, stakeholder involvement, and implementation issues, including workflow integration, staff training, accountability, interoperability, and sustainability, were inconsistently assessed.

    Ethical and equity issues require greater attention. Profiling uses sensitive clinical, behavioral, and contextual data, raising concerns about privacy, consent, surveillance, stereotyping, and bias. Equity concerns are heightened when profiles incorporate language preference, health literacy, socioeconomic status, race, age, disability, or digital access. Multilingual AI care agents may reduce communication barriers [45], but studies of sociodemographic bias in LLM-generated nursing care highlight the need for fairness and safety evaluation [50]. LLMs also introduce risks of hallucination, outdated information, inconsistent advice, and unclear responsibility.


    Principal Findings

    This scoping review mapped evidence on AI-enabled patient profiling for personalized nursing and health support. Patient profiling was used as an umbrella concept covering patient profiles, personas, digital phenotypes, segmentation, clinical subtypes, digital twins, and LLM-enabled personalization. Across these forms, an input-process-output logic was evident: patient-related data were processed by AI methods to generate representations that could support tailored education, self-management, rehabilitation, monitoring, decision support, and follow-up.

    The most clinically relevant studies connected profiling outputs to specific nursing or health support actions, such as adherence messaging in cardiac rehabilitation [25], a rehabilitation nursing platform for spinal cord injury [46], digital twins for shared decision-making in knee osteoarthritis care [22], and personas for eHealth self-management design [30]. However, many studies remained at the stages of model development, segmentation, or technical validation. The central challenge is whether profiles can be interpreted, trusted, and acted on in nursing practice [83,84].

    This review did not treat all AI-based prediction or digital health studies as patient profiling studies. Evidence was interpreted according to whether AI methods produced patient representations that could inform personalized nursing or health support. Technically accurate predictions are not equivalent to actionable profiles; profiling outputs must be interpretable, linked to care actions, and meaningful for nurses and patients [85,86].

    Comparison With Prior Work

    Previous reviews of AI-based technologies in nursing have mapped broad categories of tools, including monitoring, prediction, decision support, and communication technologies, while noting that much of the evidence remains at an early stage of development [4]. Reviews of digital phenotyping and health care personas have examined mobile, wearable, and participatory representations separately [8,11]. This review differs by focusing on AI-enabled patient profiling as a mechanism that links heterogeneous patient data to personalized nursing or health support actions. By integrating adjacent concepts, this review shows that the key issue for nursing is not simply whether AI can generate classifications or predictions, but whether these representations can be interpreted, trusted, and translated into nursing actions. This distinction is important because many technically strong models do not yet provide clear guidance for education, monitoring, escalation, care planning, or evaluation of patient response.

    Implications for Clinical Nursing Practice

    The findings are most useful for nursing as a data-to-action framework, rather than as evidence that AI-enabled profiling should already be adopted routinely. In the studies most directly relevant to nursing practice, profiles were used to interpret assessment data, identify high-need patients, tailor education or follow-up, and support rehabilitation, care planning, or decision support. In clinical nursing practice, profile outputs should therefore be linked to explicit actions: which assessment is triggered, which educational content is selected, how follow-up intensity is adjusted, when escalation is needed, and how patient response is evaluated.

    In practice, AI-enabled patient profiles should be embedded in a nurse-mediated assessment-planning-implementation-evaluation-escalation pathway. During assessment, nurses should verify that profile inputs are complete, current, and consistent with bedside observations, patient-reported concerns, and contextual information. During planning, profile outputs should be translated into explicit nursing priorities, including symptom monitoring, education needs, self-management support, rehabilitation goals, discharge preparation, and follow-up intensity. During implementation, nurses may use profiles to tailor education, communication, coaching, reminders, care coordination, and referrals, while retaining responsibility for accepting, modifying, or overriding AI-generated recommendations. During evaluation, profile-informed actions should be assessed using nursing-sensitive and patient-centered outcomes, such as symptom burden, function, self-management capacity, patient understanding, adherence, and care continuity. Profiles indicating deterioration, high risk, inconsistent information, potential bias, or unclear accountability should trigger senior nursing review, multidisciplinary consultation, clinical escalation, or reassessment of the underlying data and algorithmic output.

    Implementation also requires close attention to nursing workload and workflow. Profiling systems are more likely to be usable when they are embedded in electronic health records or existing digital documentation systems, provide concise explanations at the point of care, and avoid duplicative data entry, alert fatigue, or fragmented communication. Responsibility for accepting, modifying, or overriding AI-generated profile recommendations should be explicit and should include escalation procedures and documentation expectations. Patient-facing education generated from profiles should be explainable, readable, culturally appropriate, and consistent with local nursing guidance.

    Research and Implementation Gaps

    Future research should strengthen conceptual clarity, profile validity, and profile-to-action pathways. Authors should specify the profile type, data sources, intended nursing or health support function, and the mechanism by which the profile informs care. Technical metrics alone are insufficient; validation should include expert assessment, patient feedback, external validation, and reproducibility testing when appropriate. Reporting should align with clinical AI guidance such as CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)-AI, SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials)-AI, MI-CLAIM (Minimum Information about Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling), and DECIDE-AI (Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigations of Decision-support systems driven by Artificial Intelligence), which emphasize intended use, human-AI interaction, safety monitoring, and early-stage clinical evaluation [87-90].

    Profile-to-strategy matching requires stronger nursing-specific methods. Many studies generated profiles without explaining how outputs translated into tailored nursing actions. Future work should make matching rules explicit through care pathways, rule tables, decision trees, recommender logic, or model explanations, and should test whether nurses can apply these rules consistently across shifts, systems, and sites. Intervention studies should evaluate nursing-sensitive outcomes, such as symptom burden, self-management capacity, function, quality of life, care continuity, readmission, patient engagement, and patient understanding, alongside implementation outcomes, including nurse workload, time burden, acceptability, usability, documentation burden, and sustainability.

    Equity and safety evaluation should be operationalized in nursing contexts rather than addressed only as general AI ethics. Profiling systems should be assessed across language, health literacy, socioeconomic status, age, disability, culture, and digital access groups because these factors shape education, self-management, monitoring, and follow-up. LLM-enabled education or conversational support also requires safeguards for hallucination, inconsistent advice, and unclear responsibility. Cross-cultural applicability should be examined before profile categories, educational messages, or decision rules are transferred across health systems, languages, and nursing practice models.

    Strengths and Limitations

    This review focused on patient profiling as a mechanism for personalized nursing and health support, rather than on a broad review of AI in nursing. It included diverse profiling concepts and used an input-process-output framework to organize evidence across data sources, methods, outputs, applications, and gaps. This approach clarified how patient data may be translated into tailored nursing or health support.

    Several limitations should be noted. Although the search strategy included explicit patient profiling terms and adjacent patient representation concepts, terminology in this emerging field remains inconsistent. Therefore, some studies using uncommon or highly domain-specific labels for patient representation may still have been missed. Included studies varied in design, population, data sources, AI methods, and outcomes, which limited comparison. This scoping review did not assess intervention effectiveness, conduct a meta-analysis, or undertake formal risk-of-bias appraisal. Gray literature, preprints, conference abstracts, and protocol registers were not searched, and reference list chasing was not used as an additional source of study identification. Not using reference list chasing may have biased the review against older foundational informatics, recommender system, persona development, and clinical decision support studies that shaped later patient profiling frameworks but did not use the exact terminology captured in the database searches. Retrospective protocol registration may also limit perceived methodological transparency, although no changes were made to the final database sources, search date, core eligibility criteria, or main data-charting domains after registration. Finally, AI and LLM applications are developing rapidly, and new studies may appear after the final search date.

    Conclusions

    Existing evidence describes AI-enabled patient profiling as a means of representing heterogeneous patient data for personalized nursing and health support. Profiling was operationalized through patient profiles, personas, digital phenotypes, patient segmentation, clinical subtypes, digital twins, and LLM-enabled personalization, with applications in education, self-management, rehabilitation, chronic disease management, remote monitoring, decision support, and follow-up.

    However, prediction is not equivalent to actionable profiling. For nursing practice, profiles must be valid, interpretable, reproducible, equitable, and linked to clear care actions. Future research should prioritize profile validation, explicit profile-to-action pathways, nurse and patient involvement, equity assessment, and implementation evaluation in real-world nursing settings.

    Acknowledgments

    No generative AI tool was used to generate, analyze, or interpret the evidence included in this scoping review. During revision, Codex (GPT-5.5; OpenAI) was used only for language polishing and formatting checks of author-drafted text; all substantive content, study eligibility decisions, data extraction, synthesis, interpretation, and final wording were reviewed and approved by the authors, who take full responsibility for the manuscript.

    Funding

    This work was supported by the Opening Project of Key Laboratory of Digital-Intelligent Disease Surveillance and Health Governance (grant JBSZ25-Z-01) and the 2025 Research Development Plan Project of the Clinical Medical College and Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College (grant 2025GC001). The funders had no role in the study design, literature searching, study selection, data charting, synthesis, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Data Availability

    Data generated or analyzed during this review are available in Multimedia Appendices 1-4. These include the full search strategies, data-charting form, study characteristics, analytic coding, full-text exclusion reasons, and the completed PRISMA-ScR checklist.

    Authors' Contributions

    Conceptualization: Jingyan Zhang, FZ

    Data charting: YG, Jingwen Zhang, HZ, XG

    Data interpretation: MT

    Database searching: YG, Jingwen Zhang, HZ, XG

    Formal analysis: Jingyan Zhang, FZ

    Methodology: Jingyan Zhang, FZ, MT

    Record screening: YG, Jingwen Zhang, HZ, XG

    Supervision: MT

    Validation: YG, Jingwen Zhang, HZ, XG

    Writing—original draft: Jingyan Zhang, FZ

    Writing—review and editing: YG, Jingwen Zhang, HZ, XG, MT

    Jingyan Zhang and FZ contributed equally to this work. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Full search strategies.

    DOCX File , 32 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Data-charting form.

    DOCX File , 29 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Study characteristics, analytic coding, and full-text exclusion reasons.

    DOCX File , 49 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    PRISMA-ScR checklist.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 130 KB
    1. Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med. Apr 04, 2019;380(14):1347-1358. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Thirunavukarasu AJ, Ting DS, Elangovan K, Gutierrez L, Tan TF, Ting DS. Large language models in medicine. Nat Med. Aug 2023;29(8):1930-1940. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Ronquillo CE, Peltonen LM, Pruinelli L, Chu CH, Bakken S, Beduschi A, et al. Artificial intelligence in nursing: priorities and opportunities from an international invitational think-tank of the Nursing and Artificial Intelligence Leadership Collaborative. J Adv Nurs. Sep 2021;77(9):3707-3717. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. von Gerich H, Moen H, Block LJ, Chu CH, DeForest H, Hobensack M, et al. Artificial intelligence-based technologies in nursing: a scoping literature review of the evidence. Int J Nurs Stud. Mar 2022;127:104153. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. Feb 26, 2015;372(9):793-795. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: a conceptual framework. Health Expect. Apr 2018;21(2):429-440. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Topaz M, Pruinelli L. Big data and nursing: implications for the future. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;232:165-171. [Medline]
    8. Dominello A, Cheek C, Clay-Williams R. The use of personas to involve consumers in healthcare co-design: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. May 06, 2025;25(1):649. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Vuik SI, Mayer EK, Darzi A. Patient segmentation analysis offers significant benefits for integrated care and support. Health Aff (Millwood). May 01, 2016;35(5):769-775. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Onnela JP, Rauch SL. Harnessing smartphone-based digital phenotyping to enhance behavioral and mental health. Neuropsychopharmacology. Jun 2016;41(7):1691-1696. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Dlima SD, Shevade S, Menezes SR, Ganju A. Digital phenotyping in health using machine learning approaches: scoping review. JMIR Bioinform Biotechnol. Jul 18, 2022;3(1):e39618. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Bruynseels K, Santoni de Sio F, van den Hoven J. Digital twins in health care: ethical implications of an emerging engineering paradigm. Front Genet. Feb 13, 2018;9:31. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. Feb 2005;8(1):19-32. [CrossRef]
    14. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. Sep 20, 2010;5:69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. Nov 19, 2018;18(1):143. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Peters MD, Godfrey C, Mcinerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Muun Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide, Australia. JBI; 2020:407-452.
    17. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. Oct 02, 2018;169(7):467-473. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Zhang J, Zhang F, Tan M. Artificial intelligence-enabled patient profiling for personalised nursing and health support: a scoping review. OSF. 2026. URL: https://osf.io/mey4u [accessed 2026-09-23]
    19. An R, Chang GM, Fan YY, Ji LL, Wang XH, Hong S. Machine learning-based patient classification system for adult patients in intensive care units: a cross-sectional study. J Nurs Manag. Sep 2021;29(6):1752-1762. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Chae S, Davoudi A, Song J, Evans L, Bowles KH, Mcdonald MV, et al. Developing a clinical decision support framework for integrating predictive models into routine nursing practices in home health care for patients with heart failure. J Nurs Scholarsh. Jan 2025;57(1):165-177. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Hewner S, Smith E, Sullivan SS. Identifying high-need primary care patients using nursing knowledge and machine learning methods. Appl Clin Inform. May 2023;14(3):408-417. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Jayakumar P, Rathouz PJ, Lin E, Trutner Z, Uhler LM, Andrawis J, et al. Shared decision making using digital twins in knee osteoarthritis care: a randomized clinical trial of an AI-enabled decision aid versus education alone on decision quality, physical function, and user experience. EClinicalMedicine. Oct 04, 2025;89:103545. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Joymangul JS, Sekhari A, Grasset O, Moalla N. Homecare interventions as a service model for obstructive sleep apnea: delivering personalised phone call using patient profiling and adherence predictions. Int J Med Inform. Feb 2023;170:104935. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Bohanec M, Tartarisco G, Marino F, Pioggia G, Puddu PE, Schiariti MS, et al. HeartMan DSS: a decision support system for self-management of congestive heart failure. Expert Syst Appl. Dec 30, 2021;186:115688. [CrossRef]
    25. Aharon KB, Gershfeld-Litvin A, Amir O, Nabutovsky I, Klempfner R. Improving cardiac rehabilitation patient adherence via personalized interventions. PLoS One. Aug 29, 2022;17(8):e0273815. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Rodriguez DV, Chen J, Viswanadham RV, Lawrence K, Mann D. Leveraging machine learning to develop digital engagement phenotypes of users in a digital diabetes prevention program: evaluation study. JMIR AI. Mar 01, 2024;3:e47122. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Tauro E, Gorini A, Bilo G, Caiani EG. A novel data-driven approach for personas validation in healthcare using self-supervised machine learning. J Biomed Inform. May 2025;165:104815. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Li J, Zakka KR, Booth J, Rigny L, Ray S, Cortina-Borja M, et al. Discovering patient groups in sequential electronic healthcare data using unsupervised representation learning. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Jan 28, 2025;25(1):45. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Lee YH, Choi H, Lee SK. Development of personas and journey maps for artificial intelligence agents supporting the use of health big data: human-centered design approach. JMIR Form Res. Jan 08, 2025;9:e67272. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Zhao T, Tang C, Ma J, Yan H, Su X, Zhong X, et al. User personas for eHealth regarding the self-management of depressive symptoms in people living with HIV: mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. Feb 17, 2025;27:e56289. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Chien I, Enrique A, Palacios J, Regan T, Keegan D, Carter D, et al. A machine learning approach to understanding patterns of engagement with internet-delivered mental health interventions. JAMA Netw Open. Jul 01, 2020;3(7):e2010791. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Kim M, Yang J, Ahn WY, Choi HJ. Machine learning analysis to identify digital behavioral phenotypes for engagement and health outcome efficacy of an mHealth intervention for obesity: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Jun 24, 2021;23(6):e27218. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Campagner A, Marconi L, Bianchi E, Arosio B, Rossi P, Annoni G, et al. Uncovering hidden subtypes in dementia: an unsupervised machine learning approach to dementia diagnosis and personalization of care. J Biomed Inform. May 2025;165:104799. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Leung E, Guan J, Chen FY, Ching SC, Tsang H, Wong MC, et al. Profiling unmet post-acute care needs of an inpatient population in Hong Kong: can real-world data and machine learning algorithms bring precision to tertiary prevention in the community? Hong Kong Med J. Dec 2025;31(6):462-473. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Abbasian M, Azimi I, Rahmani AM, Jain R. Conversational health agents: a personalized large language model-powered agent framework. JAMIA Open. Jul 06, 2025;8(4):ooaf067. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Jelic A, Sesto I, Rotkvic L, Pavlovic L, Erceg N, Sesto N, et al. Evaluating the clinical effectiveness and patient experience of a large language model-based digital tool for home-based blood pressure management: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Nov 03, 2025;13:e68361. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Yang TT, Zheng HX, Cao S, Jing ML, Hu J, Zuo Y, et al. Harnessing an artificial intelligence-based large language model with personal health record capability for personalized information support in postsurgery myocardial infarction: descriptive qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. Apr 30, 2025;27:e68762. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Adikari A, Nawaratne R, De Silva D, Carey DL, Walsh A, Baum C, et al. Is mild really mild?: Generating longitudinal profiles of stroke survivor impairment and impact using unsupervised machine learning. Appl Sci. Aug 04, 2024;14(15):6800. [CrossRef]
    39. Fritz R, Cook D. Detecting older adults' behavior changes during adverse external events using ambient sensing: longitudinal observational study. JMIR Nurs. May 01, 2025;8:e69052. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Lima MR, Su T, Jouaiti M, Wairagkar M, Malhotra P, Soreq E, et al. Discovering behavioral patterns using conversational technology for in-home health and well-being monitoring. IEEE Internet Things J. Nov 1, 2023;10(21):18537-18552. [CrossRef]
    41. Huang C, Xu J, Qiu H, Yue Y. Developing nurse-accessible hypertension prediction tools for low-income populations: a comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms with SHAP interpretation. Int J Nurs Pract. Oct 23, 2025;31(5):e70060. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Faro JM, Nagawa CS, Allison JA, Lemon SC, Mazor KM, Houston TK, et al. Comparison of a collective intelligence tailored messaging system on smoking cessation between African American and White people who smoke: quasi-experimental design. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Apr 27, 2020;8(4):e18064. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Li J, Maharjan B, Xie B, Tao C. A personalized voice-based diet assistant for caregivers of Alzheimer disease and related dementias: system development and validation. J Med Internet Res. Sep 21, 2020;22(9):e19897. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Guni A, Normahani P, Davies A, Jaffer U. Harnessing machine learning to personalize web-based health care content. J Med Internet Res. Oct 19, 2021;23(10):e25497. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Bhimani M, Baker RH, Ausin MS, Meixiong G, Lasko R, Raglow-Defranco M, et al. Using a multilingual AI care agent to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening for higher fecal immunochemical test adoption among Spanish-speaking patients: retrospective analysis. J Med Internet Res. Jun 25, 2025;27:e71211. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Dai Y, Shao T, Yao L, Hu F, Jia Q. Construction and application of a patient profiling-based rehabilitation nursing platform for patients with spinal cord injury. Chin J Nurs. 2024;59(22):2693-2699. [CrossRef]
    47. Kumar D, Haag D, Blechert J, Niebauer J, Smeddinck JD. Feature selection for physical activity prediction using ecological momentary assessments to personalize intervention timing: longitudinal observational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 24, 2025;13:e57255. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Chen Y, Ho KY, Zong X, Weng Y, Yuan C, Yorke J. The digital intelligent precise nursing framework: theory development in health recommender system. BMC Nurs. Sep 26, 2025;24(1):1191. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Yang Z, Rahmani AM. Personalized causal graph reasoning for LLMs: an implementation for dietary recommendations. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. Dec 2025;29(12):8767-8774. [CrossRef]
    50. Bai N, Yu Y, Luo C, Zhou SC, Wang Q, Zou H, et al. Detecting sociodemographic biases in the content and quality of large language model-generated nursing care: cross-sectional simulation study. J Med Internet Res. Dec 05, 2025;27:e78132. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Linardon J, Torous J. Integrating artificial intelligence and smartphone technology to enhance personalized assessment and treatment for eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord. Aug 2025;58(8):1415-1424. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Liao JC, Wu HJ, Chuang TT, Chen TW, Strong C. Enhancing PrEP adherence through person-centred mobile app interventions: a real-world data and machine learning approach using UPrEPU among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in Taiwan. J Int AIDS Soc. Sep 2025;28 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):e70033. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Fagherazzi G, Aguayo GA, Zhang L, Hanaire H, Picard S, Sablone L, et al. Heterogeneity of glycaemic phenotypes in type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia. Aug 2024;67(8):1567-1581. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Li Y, Liou KT, Schofield E, Atkinson TM, Mao JJ. Novel Bayesian nonparametric unsupervised learning approach to precision symptom management in cancer survivors: a re-analysis of a comparative effectiveness trial. J Behav Med. Apr 2026;49(2):372-385. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Spinsante S, Poli A, Mongay Batalla J, Krawiec P, Dobre C, Bǎjenaru L, et al. Clinically-validated technologies for assisted living. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. Aug 16, 2021;14:2095-2116. [CrossRef]
    56. Midelet A, Bailly S, Tamisier R, Borel JC, Baillieul S, Le Hy R, et al. Hidden Markov model segmentation to demarcate trajectories of residual apnoea-hypopnoea index in CPAP-treated sleep apnoea patients to personalize follow-up and prevent treatment failure. EPMA J. Nov 25, 2021;12(4):535-544. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Naseri MM, Tabibian S, Homayounvala E. Adaptive and personalized user behavior modeling in complex event processing platforms for remote health monitoring systems. Artif Intell Med. Dec 2022;134:102421. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Chew HS, Shridhar M, Kuang H, Wang J, Furqan MS. Momentary dietary lapse prediction for obesity management: developing the Eating Behaviour Lapse Inventory Survey Singapore (eBLISS) and a machine learning lapse prediction model. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. Sep 2025;269:108880. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Marfoglia A, D’Errico C, Mellone S, Carbonaro A. A knowledge graph-driven framework for deploying AI-powered patient digital twins. Future Gener Comput Syst. Jul 2026;180:108380. [CrossRef]
    60. Pokhrel Bhattarai S, Dzikowicz DJ, Xue Y, Block R, Tucker RG, Carey MG. Comprehensive analysis of heart failure subtypes presenting at emergency department for acute heart failure management. J Emerg Nurs. Sep 2025;51(5):946-960. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Sang D, Miao L, Wu Q. A smart community interactive art therapy platform based on multimodal computer graphics and resilient artificial intelligence for home-based elderly care. Sci Rep. Dec 03, 2025;15(1):43057. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Kowlagi N, Heikkala E, Saarakkala S, Karppinen J, Tiulpin A. An unsupervised learning approach for multimodal low back pain stratification. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Apr 15, 2026;51(8):582-592. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Hors-Fraile S, Malwade S, Luna-Perejon F, Amaya C, Civit A, Schneider F, et al. Opening the black box: explaining the process of basing a health recommender system on the I-Change behavioral change model. IEEE Access. 2019;7:176525-176540. [CrossRef]
    64. Momand Z, Mongkolnam P, Chan JH, Charoenkitkarn N, Pal D. Building digital twins for elderly care: an end-to-end framework from data acquisition to modeling. IEEE Access. Sep 09, 2025;13:169415-169445. [CrossRef]
    65. Tang C, Zhang R, Gao S, Zhao Z, Zhang Z, Wang J, et al. An AI-driven multimodal smart home platform for continuous monitoring and assistance in post-stroke motor impairment. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. Dec 17, 2025;34:300-312. [CrossRef]
    66. Schillinger D, Balyan R, Crossley SA, McNamara DS, Liu JY, Karter AJ. Employing computational linguistics techniques to identify limited patient health literacy: findings from the ECLIPPSE study. Health Serv Res. Feb 2021;56(1):132-144. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Jun Z, Youwen C, Xining R, Dousheng B, Yu M, Xiaomei D. Exploration and practice of an intelligent whole-process health education model for day surgery. Chin Health Qual Manag. 2025;32:19-22. [CrossRef]
    68. Lopez-Castroman J, Abad-Tortosa D, Cobo Aguilera A, Courtet P, Barrigón ML, Artés A, et al. Psychiatric profiles of eHealth users evaluated using data mining techniques: cohort study. JMIR Ment Health. Jan 20, 2021;8(1):e17116. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Wang X, Li J, Liang T, Hasan WU, Zaman KT, Du Y, et al. Promoting personalized reminiscence among cognitively intact older adults through an AI-driven interactive multimodal photo album: development and usability study. JMIR Aging. Jan 23, 2024;7:e49415. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Hilberger H, Buchgraber-Schnalzer B, Huber S, Weitlaner T, Bödenler M, Abaci A, et al. Design of a mobile app and a clinical trial management system for cognitive health and dementia risk reduction: user-centered design approach. JMIR Aging. Jul 02, 2025;8:e66660. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Du K, Li A, Zuo QH, Zhang CY, Guo R, Chen P, et al. Comparing artificial intelligence-generated and clinician-created personalized self-management guidance for patients with knee osteoarthritis: blinded observational study. J Med Internet Res. May 07, 2025;27:e67830. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Varidel M, An V, Hickie IB, Cripps S, Marchant R, Scott J, et al. Causal AI recommendation system for digital mental health: Bayesian decision-theoretic analysis. J Med Internet Res. Jun 19, 2025;27:e71305. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Sadasivam RS, Borglund EM, Adams R, Marlin BM, Houston TK. Impact of a collective intelligence tailored messaging system on smoking cessation: the perspect randomized experiment. J Med Internet Res. Nov 08, 2016;18(11):e285. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Kapse S, Yenurkar G, Nyangaresi VO, Balpande G, Kale S, Jadhav M, et al. MediServe: an IoT-enhanced deep learning framework for personalized medication management for elderly care. Comput Mater Contin. Mar 26, 2025;83(1):935-976. [CrossRef]
    75. Goldstein A, Shahar Y, Weisman Raymond M, Peleg H, Ben-Chetrit E, Ben-Yehuda A, et al. Multi-dimensional validation of the integration of syntactic and semantic distance measures for clustering fibromyalgia patients in the rheumatic monitor big data study. Bioengineering (Basel). Jan 19, 2024;11(1):97. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Liao C, Chu C, Lin T, Chou T, Tsai M. Enhancing patient outcomes in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes and artificial intelligence-driven oncology care using large language models. Cancers (Basel). Jul 15, 2025;17(14):2345. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Fiorini L, Cavallo F, Dario P, Eavis A, Caleb-Solly P. Unsupervised machine learning for developing personalised behaviour models using activity data. Sensors (Basel). May 04, 2017;17(5):1034. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Xiao J, Liu X, Zeng J, Cao Y, Feng Z. Recommendation of healthcare services based on an embedded user profile model. Int J Semant Web Inf Syst. Jan 01, 2022;18(1):1-21. [CrossRef]
    79. Tang V, Lam HY, Wu CH, Ho GT. A two-echelon responsive health analytic model for triggering care plan revision in geriatric care management. J Organ End User Comput. 2022;34(4):1-29. [CrossRef]
    80. Wang Y, An Y, Meng Q, Yang J, Liu H, Du L, et al. Application of an intelligent continuous care model during skin expansion in auricular reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. Jun 2026;50(11):4568-4573. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Bellfield RA, Olier I, Lotto R, Jones I, Dawson EA, Li G, et al. AI-based derivation of atrial fibrillation phenotypes in the general and critical care populations. EBioMedicine. Sep 2024;107:105280. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Bosschaerts K, Kashefi A, De Marez L, Conradie P, Van Hoecke S, Ongenae F. Designing a just-in-time adaptive intervention with trigger detection and a generative chatbot: smoking cessation use case. Digit Health. Oct 14, 2025;11:20552076251381747. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Amann J, Blasimme A, Vayena E, Frey D, Madai VI. Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Nov 30, 2020;20(1):310. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado G, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. Oct 29, 2019;17(1):195. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Sendak MP, Gao M, Brajer N, Balu S. Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels. NPJ Digit Med. Mar 23, 2020;3:41. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Wiens J, Saria S, Sendak M, Ghassemi M, Liu VX, Doshi-Velez F, et al. Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care. Nat Med. Sep 2019;25(9):1337-1340. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Cruz Rivera S, Liu X, Chan AW, Denniston AK, Calvert MJ, SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group, SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Steering Group, et al. SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Consensus Group. Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extension. Nat Med. Sep 2020;26(9):1351-1363. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Liu X, Cruz Rivera S, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK, SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension. Nat Med. Sep 2020;26(9):1364-1374. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Norgeot B, Quer G, Beaulieu-Jones BK, Torkamani A, Dias R, Gianfrancesco M, et al. Minimum information about clinical artificial intelligence modeling: the MI-CLAIM checklist. Nat Med. Sep 2020;26(9):1320-1324. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, Clifton DA, Collins GS, Denaxas S, et al. Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Nat Med. May 2022;28(5):924-933. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    CBM: Chinese Biomedical Literature Database
    CNKI: China National Knowledge Infrastructure
    CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
    DECIDE-AI: Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigations of Decision-support systems driven by Artificial Intelligence
    LLM: large language model
    MI-CLAIM: Minimum Information about Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling
    PrEP: pre-exposure prophylaxis
    PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews
    SPIRIT: Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials

    Edited by A Stone; submitted 02.Jun.2026; peer-reviewed by S Hewner, FA Causio; comments to author 12.Aug.2026; revised version received 16.Sep.2026; accepted 17.Sep.2026; published 29.Oct.2026.

    Copyright

    ©Jingyan Zhang, Fengyi Zhang, Youpeng Guo, Jingwen Zhang, Hongmei Zhong, Xuemei Guo, Min Tan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 29.Oct.2026.

    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.