Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41358250›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2025

Artificial intelligence in chronic disease self-management: current applications and future directions.

Ying Du, Peng Yang, Yuntao Liu, Chunxia Deng, Xin Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ying DuDepartment of Health Management, Affiliated Renhe Hospital of China Three Gorges University, Yichang, Hubei, China.
Peng YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Renhe Hospital of China Three Gorges University, Yichang, Hubei, China.
Yuntao LiuDepartment of Endocrinology, Affiliated Renhe Hospital of China Three Gorges University, Yichang, Hubei, China.
Chunxia DengDepartment of General Surgery, Affiliated Renhe Hospital of China Three Gorges University, Yichang, Hubei, China.
Xin LiDepartment of Nursing, Affiliated Renhe Hospital of China Three Gorges University, Yichang, Hubei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to summarize current applications of artificial intelligence (AI) for chronic disease self-management, critically appraise their effectiveness, and identify implementation challenges and future directions for research and clinical integration. Methods: A narrative literature review of peer-reviewed, English-language studies identified via PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus was conducted, using combinations of "artificial intelligence," "chronic disease," "self-management," "remote monitoring," "predictive analytics," "conversational agent," and "mobile health." Reference lists of key reviews were snowballed. We included studies that described or evaluated AI-enabled self-management tools or interventions for chronic conditions and excluded non-AI, acute-care, editorial, and non-human studies. Findings were synthesized thematically. Results: The literature consistently identifies four roles of AI in chronic care: (1) personalized decision support and treatment optimization; (2) continuous monitoring and risk prediction from patient-generated data; (3) conversational agents delivering education, adherence support, reminders, behavioral coaching, and mental-health support; and (4) AI-enabled Mobile health (mHealth) platforms that connect patients with clinicians and coordinate care. Recurrent challenges reported include data privacy and security risks, algorithmic bias and limited generalizability, interoperability and workflow-integration barriers, variable usability and sustained engagement (digital divide- inequalities in access to digital technologies and the internet, often influenced by age, income, or geography), and insufficient high-quality evidence on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Conclusion: Future directions focus on developing more accurate, explainable, and trustworthy AI models, better clinical integration, leveraging advanced AI for engagement, rigorous evaluation, and addressing ethical and implementation barriers to realize AI's full potential in empowering patients and improving chronic disease outcomes.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceSelf-ManagementChronic DiseaseHumansTelemedicineartificial intelligencechronic disease self-managementdigital health platformspersonalized interventionspredictive analytics

Identifiers

PMID41358250
PMCPMC12675485

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.