ArticleDigital health
When end users can build: AI-assisted application development and the new accountability gap in digital health.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is dramatically changing the division of labor in digital health innovation. Until recently, a frontline health professional, educator or researcher who identified a workflow problem typically needed a software developer to translate that problem into a functioning application. Drawing on my recent experience building and deploying two web applications for health professional education, each in less than five hours and without formal computer science or information technology training, this Perspective argues that the early bottleneck in digital health tool development is shifting. AI did not replace domain judgment: the clinical education needs, workflow priorities, and decisions about what counted as useful remained mine. What AI supplied was technical translation, code generation, troubleshooting and step-by-step guidance for using tools such as Visual Studio Code, PowerShell, version control and web deployment platforms. This experience suggests that end users may increasingly be able to move from problem identification to first functioning application without a software developer at the initial build stage. The implications are substantial but not simple. Technical collaboration remains essential, but its center of gravity may move toward cybersecurity, privacy, architecture, institutional integration, maintenance and long-term stewardship. The unresolved issue is not whether end users can now build, but who is responsible for determining whether AI-generated code is safe enough to deploy in institutional environments. Digital health practitioners and researchers therefore need governance models that recognize a new reality: end-user-developed applications are becoming technically feasible, but accountable review and ownership remain indispensable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.