Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42147611›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Prescription Digital Therapeutics as Living Interventions: Rethinking Evidence, Dosage, and Regulation in Adaptive Medicine.

Rahul Mittal, Nancy Zhang, Rajnish Mohindroo

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Rahul MittalHealth Informatics, Rutgers University, Piscataway, USA.
Nancy ZhangComputer Science and Statistics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA.
Rajnish MohindrooGeneral Practice, Health and Beyond Partnership, Wolverhampton, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prescription digital therapeutics (PDTs) are transforming healthcare by delivering evidence-based interventions through adaptive software platforms. Unlike traditional therapies, PDTs can evolve after deployment through updates and user-driven modifications, challenging conventional models of evidence generation, dosage definition, and regulatory oversight. This editorial argues that PDTs should be conceptualized as "living interventions," requiring new frameworks that account for their dynamic nature. Key challenges include the absence of standardized definitions for digital "dose," variability in patient engagement, and the difficulty of measuring outcomes in continuously evolving systems. Additionally, the transition of therapeutic care into digital environments raises questions about maintaining therapeutic alliance and patient trust. Existing regulatory pathways, designed for static medical products, are insufficient for technologies that change over time. We propose the need for interdisciplinary and anticipatory approaches that integrate clinical science, engagement science, regulatory innovation, and implementation strategies. Ethical considerations, including equity, data privacy, and access, must remain central to ensure that PDTs enhance rather than widen healthcare disparities. As digital therapeutics continue to expand, aligning adaptability with accountability will be critical to their safe, effective, and equitable integration into modern healthcare systems.

Indexed as

clinical innovationhealthcare technologypersonalized medicineprescription digital therapeuticssoftware-based care

Identifiers

PMID42147611
PMCPMC13179847

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.