Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41627817›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Generative Artificial Intelligence Applications Use Among US Youth.

Anne J Maheux, Samir Akre-Bhide, Debra Boeldt, Jessica E Flannery, Zachary Richardson, Kaitlyn Burnell, Eva H Telzer, Scott H Kollins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

8 authors.

Anne J MaheuxUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Samir Akre-BhideAura, Boston, Massachusetts.
Debra BoeldtAura, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jessica E FlanneryAura, Boston, Massachusetts.
Zachary RichardsonAura, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kaitlyn BurnellUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Eva H TelzerUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Scott H KollinsAura, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: As generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools become increasingly integrated into the daily lives of youth, it is critical to study their usage patterns and potential implications for mental health. While there is evidence of a rapid pace of adoption among adults, rates of GenAI use among youth remains largely undocumented. Objective: To characterize GenAI application (app) usage among US youth, including adoption rates and time spent. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study documented digital behavior of US youth extracted from a parental monitoring app. Participants were ages 4 to 17 years and were in families using a commercially available Aura app in the US. No identifying information was collected about the child except year of birth. Data were collected using passive sensing methods from naturalistic smart device use between September 2024 and April 2025. Data were analyzed in May and June 2025. Main Outcome and Measures: Adoption rates (ie, number of youth ever accessing GenAI apps on their device) and time spent using GenAI (ie, average minutes accessing GenAI apps), measured by age and time period. Results: In a cohort of 6488 participants, nearly 2072 youths (31.9%) used GenAI apps on their device. GenAI use was highest among teens (age 13 to 14 years, 899 of 2139 [42.0%]; age 15 to 17 years, 628 of 1246 [50.4%]), although adoption among preteens (age 10 to 12 years, 484 of 2366 [20.5%]) and school-aged children (age 8 to 9 years, 49 of 522 [9.4%]) was not trivial. GenAI usage was higher after school than at nighttime or during school. Overall, users spent a mean (SD) 2.37 (10.55) and a median (IQR) 0.18 (0.04-0.84) minutes a day using GenAI, yet large variances and skewed distributions suggest that a small subset of youth use GenAI extensively, with the heaviest users accessing GenAI for over 40 minutes a day. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, Gen AI app use varied widely among participants, with up to half of adolescents having some use and a small subset engaging in heavy use. Future research must address individual differences in GenAI use to determine impacts on development.

Indexed as

Generative Artificial IntelligenceMobile ApplicationsAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41627817
PMCPMC12865656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 OpenQuestion graph.