The role of artificial intelligence in the application of the integrated electronic health records and patient-generated health data
====================================================================================================================================

* Jiancheng Ye
* Jiarui Hai
* Jiacheng Song
* Zidan Wang

## ABSTRACT

**Objective** This scoping review aims to identify and understand the role of artificial intelligence in the application of integrated electronic health records (EHRs) and patient-generated health data (PGHD) in health care, including clinical decision support, health care quality, and patient safety. We focused on the integrated data that combined PGHD and EHR data, and we investigated the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the application in health care.

**Methods** We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search articles in six databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Computer Society Digital Library. In addition, we synthesized seminal sources, including other systematic reviews, reports, and white papers, to inform the context, history, and development of this interdisciplinary research field.

**Results** Fifty-six publications met the review criteria after screening. The EHR-integrated PGHD introduces benefits to health care, including empowering patients and families to engage via shared decision-making, improving the patient-provider relationship, and reducing the time and cost of clinical visits. AI’s roles include cleaning and management of heterogeneous datasets, assisting in identifying dynamic patterns to improve clinical care processes, and providing more sophisticated algorithms to better predict outcomes and propose precise recommendations based on the integrated data. Challenges mainly stem from the large volume of integrated data, data standards, data exchange and interoperability, security and privacy, interpretation, and meaningful use.

**Conclusion** The use of PGHD in health care is at a promising stage but needs further work for widespread adoption and seamless integration into health care systems. AI-driven, EHR-integrated PGHD systems can greatly improve clinicians’ abilities to diagnose patients’ health issues, classify risks at the patient level by drawing on the power of integrated data, and provide much-needed support to clinics and hospitals. With EHR-integrated PGHD, AI can help transform health care by improving diagnosis, treatment, and the delivery of clinical care, thus improving clinical decision support, health care quality, and patient safety.

Keywords
*   artificial intelligence
*   electronic health record
*   patient-generated health data
*   clinical decision support
*   health care quality
*   patient safety

## INTRODUCTION

The recent widespread routine uses of smartphones, wearable sensors, and the Internet of Things (IoT) technologies have emerged as promising data sources for health care research.[1] These technologies are driving more targeted patient engagement thanks to the massive development of digital capacities. Personal health information has also spiked with the broad availability of low-cost devices designed to monitor and inform healthy lifestyles.[2] This scoping review focuses on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI), electronic health records (EHRs), and patient-generated health data (PGHD) in health care, including clinical decision support, health care quality, and patient safety.

### Patient-generated health data

Patient-generated health data (PGHD), defined by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), includes health symptoms, medical history, biometric information, treatment history, lifestyle data, and other information.[3] PGHD is created, gathered, and recorded either by patients or their designees (i.e., care partners or those who assist them) to help address a health concern.[4] By reviewing and discussing PGHD with patients remotely, clinicians can address clinical issues efficiently outside of clinical settings.

PGHD allows health issues to be closely monitored without inconvenient traffic, insurance copayments, or lost days at work. It also provides actionable information for disease risk assessment and identification of issues that require urgent attention. In addition, PGHD can improve provider-patient communication and relationships by promoting mutual understanding, follow-up and feedback,[5, 6] and thought sharing.[7] Various opportunities regarding PGHD are envisioned in the context of big data and artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. The ONC has initiated several activities to advance knowledge of the PGHD and identify policies and promising practices to support this field.

### Artificial intelligence

AI is a technology that aims to mimic human cognitive functions in the analysis, presentation, and comprehension of complex health data and bring a revolutionary paradigm innovation to health care. This innovation is powered by the increased availability of health data (structured and unstructured) and rapid progress of analytical techniques. AI has unique abilities to collect and gather data, process it, and give a well-defined output to the end-user. AI can use sophisticated algorithms to learn features from a large volume of health-related data, and then use the obtained insights to assist clinical practice. Embedding AI technologies into health care can help to reduce diagnostic and therapeutic errors that are inevitable in human practice, thus improving health care quality and patient safety. AI can also extract useful information from a large patient population data, including PGHD and EHR, to assist in making real-time inferences for health outcome prediction and health risk alerts. AI technologies have been successfully applied to clinical practices such as diagnosis processes,[8] treatment protocol development,[9] personalized medicine,[10] drug development,[11] and patient monitoring and care.[12] Various specialties in health care have shown an increase in research related to AI.[13] Currently, many countries, including the United States, are investing billions of dollars to support the development of AI in health care.[14].

### Clinical decision support

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems provide health care workers with essential knowledge, intelligently manage electronic health data, present critical information at appropriate times, produce clinical advice, and thus enhance health care. CDS encompasses a variety of tools to enhance decision making in the clinical workflow, including clinical guidelines, documentation templates, computerized alerts and reminders to clinicians and patients, patient reports and summaries, diagnostic support, and contextually relevant reference information.[15]

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) also promotes the use of CDS systems to advance the quality of patient care.[16] CDS has contributed to health care by minimizing medical errors (e.g., medication prescription errors, adverse drug events, and administration errors), providing tools to measure clinician performance and patient outcomes,[17] and simplifying the workflow by integrating real-time PGHD into EHR.

### Health care quality

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines quality of care as “the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge”.[18] The World Health Organization (WHO) states that health care quality should have three characteristics: effectiveness, safe, and people-centered.[19] Examples include therapy’s reduction or lessening of diseases identified by medical diagnosis, decrease in the number of risk factors, or health indicators in the population who are accessing certain kinds of care. Health care quality improvement began in the 19th century, and interventions were implemented in an effort to improve health care outcomes.[20, 21] More recently, a focus on health care quality improvement has been the emerging health information technologies (e.g., EHR, PGHD).[22]

### Patient safety

Patient safety is defined as the minimization of the risk of harm associated with the health care process and the absence of preventable harm to patients.[23] Patient safety aims to protect patients through the prevention, reduction, reporting, and analysis of errors and other types of unnecessary harm that often lead to adverse events.[24] In 1999, the IOM released the report, “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System,” which called for a broad effort to establish a Center for Patient Safety, develop safety programs in health care organizations, expand reporting on adverse events, and further engage policymakers, health care workers, professional societies, and researchers in achieving these goals.[25] Despite these post-IOM report initiatives, studies have shown that medical errors are still the third leading cause of death in the US, and over 250,000 people die every year due to medical mix-ups.[26]

Integrating PGHD into EHRs further expands the capacity to monitor patients’ health status without requiring office visits or hospitalizations. The combination of PGHD and EHR enables health care providers to have a more comprehensive view of the patients. Although there is increasing attention on the application of AI using either EHR or PGHD (**Figure 1a** and **1b**), little is known about its application to integrated EHR and PGHD data (**Figure 1c**). It would be valuable to (1) investigate and understand the current state of the integration of PGHD into EHR with a focus on AI application in clinical care, and (2) identify potential roles of AI in the efficient translation of EHR-integrated PGHD into health care applications.[27]

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/F1)

Figure 1. 
The association of artificial intelligence applications with EHR, PGHD, and EHR-integrated patient generated health data. AI= artificial intelligence, EHR= electronic health records, PGHD= patient-generated health data.

This scoping review aims to identify and understand the role of AI in the application of the EHR-integrated PGHD in health care, including clinical decision support, health care quality, and patient safety (**Figure 2**). We focus on applications of AI that use the integrated data and identify opportunities, successful experiences, challenges, strategies, and implications.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/F2)

Figure 2. 
The framework of artificial intelligence application of electronic health record (EHR)–integrated patient-generated health data (PGHD) system on clinical decision support, health care quality, and patient safety.

## MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed and reported this scoping review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).[28] In addition, we also synthesized seminal sources, including other systematic reviews, reports, and white papers, to inform the context, history, and development of this interdisciplinary research field.

### Search strategy

We searched six databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Computer Society Digital Library. We used search terms for common data capturing modalities, such as wearable sensors, wearable devices, mobile health, patient-reported outcomes, and artificial intelligence. Years ranged from 2000 to 2023. Given the recent advancement in health information technology that is relevant to this interdisciplinary research field, we restricted the study time period to the last two decades. We searched all keywords and synonyms related to patient-generated health data, clinical decision making, health care quality, and patient safety. **Supplemental Table 1** outlines our search strategy for each database. This review was broadly inclusive of papers and focused on studies using human participants that were written in any language and available in full text (but not constrained to free article access).

### Inclusion criteria

Given the focus of this review on EHR-integrated patient-generated health data for health care applications (unlike the use of PGHD for the sole purpose of collecting data for a research protocol or without the involvement of clinicians), inclusion was that the article must have been peer-reviewed and represent empirical work (data, whether qualitative or quantitative, collected as part of the study and reported in the article). The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were defined by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); PROs are “reports of the status of a patient’s health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else.”[29] PROs can be categorized as disease-related symptoms, side effects of treatment, or quality of life.[30]

### Exclusion criteria

We excluded papers that only discussed PGHD issues and case reports that focused on the architectures or infrastructures. Articles in which the data were simulated or fabricated for test purposes were also excluded. We solely included PGHD that has been integrated into EHR or health systems. The data in the studies should have been used for clinical decision support, health care quality, or patient safety. **Figure 3** provides a PRISMA flow diagram of the screening process.

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/F3)

Figure 3. 
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram of the review process.

### Study Selection

First, duplicate articles were eliminated from the retrieved articles. Then, all the reviewers independently screened articles based on titles and abstracts to identify the studies that potentially could fit into the research question and meet the eligibility criteria. A record would be excluded if it was marked irrelevant by two reviewers. For records that were kept or difficult to decide based on the title or abstract, the full-text was scrutinized. When disagreements regarding study inclusion occurred between two reviewers, a third reviewer was involved in the discussion until consensus was reached. A total of 56 publications met the review criteria after screening.

## RESULTS

### Artificial intelligence’s capacities

AI has gained significant attention in the past decades, particularly in the context of improving health and well-being.[9] AI works by combining large amounts of data with fast and iterative processing using intelligent algorithms, allowing the system to identify and learn patterns or features from the data automatically.[31] **Table 1** demonstrates domains, theories, methods, and technologies in AI.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/T1)

Table 1. AI theory, technologies, and their applications on EHR-integrated PGHD system

### Integration of EHR and PGHD

EHR data include health information of clinical checkups, medical procedures, and drug prescriptions, and is focused on individual patients. In a traditional health care environment, providers typically make decisions based on the data they collect in clinical care settings. These data create a snapshot of the patient’s health at single points in time rather than continuous measurements outside of clinical settings.[4] Traditionally, clinicians can only leverage EHR data to develop diagnosis and treatment plans. EHR can be combined with other high-value datasets, such as administrative and claims data, genomic data, and other personal health information to develop rich longitudinal profiles of individual patients and populations.[32] Analytic opportunities regarding PGHD are envisioned in the context of big data and AI in medicine. AI applications are more effective when they can integrate large amounts of data, such as PGHD and EHR, both of which present diverse facets of health. PGHD has been envisioned to supplement EHR data, with a rich picture of a person’s environmental context, behavioral patterns, and lifestyle information.[33] Filing in the clinical visit’s gaps using PGHD has the potential to inform better clinical decision making, with patients’ active engagement in the process.[34]

Integrating PGHD into EHR adds value by expanding the scope of biomedical, public health, and population health research that can be conducted, which would not have been feasible by relying on EHR data alone. EHR-integrated PGHD can capture the patient’s voices and perspectives, amplify real-life situations, and strengthen the patient-provider relationship, thus improving clinical decision support, health care quality, and patient safety.

### Clinical decision support

The EHR-integrated PGHD can empower patients to manage their health and collaborate with clinicians to improve the quality of clinical decision-making. Clinicians can gain a better understanding of the patient’s health over time and reduce unnecessary visits or hospital admissions, and patients can undergo targeted interventions in the preoperative setting to mitigate the massive burden on the health care system postoperatively, all of which could contribute to better patient satisfaction and save medical resources.[34] Patient reported outcome, as one example of PGHD, is particularly important when patients need to make a decision from multiple treatment plans that demonstrate similar benefits regarding survival. PRO data can inform decision-making in this situation by providing insight into quality of life, such as the ability to maintain one’s roles and responsibilities during treatment and the ability to engage in physical activity, which can also have significant financial benefits.[35] In addition, PROs may be less vulnerable than traditional clinical assessments to “white coat syndrome”, in which patients are less likely to report symptoms during an interview.[36] **Table 2** demonstrates the roles of AI in the application of integrated EHRs and PGHD in clinical decision support.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/T2)

Table 2. Roles AI in the application of the integrated EHRs and PGHD in clinical decision support

AI plays a vital role in leveraging the integrated data and creating prediction models of outcomes, including complications, readmissions, and mortality risk. Advanced statistical algorithms and modeling, including descriptive modeling (to dissect patterns and relationships in the observed data), predictive analytics (to predict future events based on existing data), and statistical hypothesis testing (to assess causal inference), can enable a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the integrated heterogeneous data sets. We acknowledge that AI’s goal is not to replace physicians’ clinical judgment but to help them rapidly prioritize patients’ symptoms and assess a range of diagnostic possibilities.

### Health care quality

EHR-integrated PGHD has contributed to improvements in quality of care, fewer readmissions, less resource utilization, and increased consumer satisfaction.[37] A study has shown that integrated data facilitated a better patient-provider relationship, which contributed to more efficient modes of accessibility of health care and an increased sense of empowerment of patients.[38] **Table 3** demonstrates the roles of AI in the application of integrated EHRs and PGHD in health care quality. We mapped the findings on the STEEEP (safety, timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, equitable, and patient-centeredness) framework.[39]

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/T3)

Table 3. Roles of AI in the application of the integrated EHRs and PGHD in health care quality

Levering AI algorithms, the integrated data can help clinicians develop personalized health care recommendations for patients. PGHD that are generated through wearable devices are unique because they are continuously, passively, and objectively collected in free-living conditions; such data are different from those generated through traditional technologies that require the manual input of data.[40, 41] AI-assisted, EHR-integrated PGHD systems can improve and increase access to treatment for populations in resource-limited settings.[42] For example, there is growing evidence that AI-driven chatbots, through voice recognition and assistance, can address routine patient questions and help clinicians send messages about diagnosis results, risk evaluation, and treatment plans to patients.[43]

### Patient safety

In most health care computerized systems, a health care worker (e.g., nurse) is needed at the interface between the data capture and patient visits. As the modes of data interpretation progress, AI is providing more sophisticated algorithms to interact with patients in an automated and efficient way and to better predict outcomes.[44] For example, computer vision facilitated the interpretation of images and videos by machines at or above human-level capabilities including object and scene recognition.[45] Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) can be incorporated at every stage of a health care system, which can make users focus on the task without ever being distracted by moving their visual fields away from the region of interest.[46] This is a great opportunity to develop better systems to capture and interpret the EHR-integrated PGHD. Some PRO data collection apps, such as Carevive (Carevive Systems Inc), have used AI algorithms to suggest self-management strategies.[47] Some studies have also shown well-articulated, measure-specific algorithms for identifying severe symptoms and clinically significant worsening of symptoms. [48] **Table 4** demonstrates the roles of AI in the application of integrated EHRs and PGHD in patient safety. We mapped the findings on the WHO global patient safety framework.[49]

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/T4)

Table 4. Roles of AI in the application of the integrated EHRs and PGHD in patient safety

The integration of PGHD and EHR is another method of assessing recovery and expectations.[50] Studies have reported some successful alerts and feedback mechanisms based on the EHR-integrated PGHD, including: out of range vital signs; [51] patient alerts to contact clinicians if experiencing a symptom severity of grade 3 or higher; [52] symptom-treatment mismatch notice to the patient with alerts sent to a clinician; [53] dashboard showing asthma control with notification of local air pollution levels as well as medication adherence; [54] alert on a dashboard for nurses if individual blood pressure measurements cross a specified critical level;[55] a patient app and provider dashboard, including the ability to graph findings over time;[56] feedback about the comparison between entered blood glucose value and patient-specific target; [57] alerts for symptoms that pass critical thresholds with feedback about what and when to report to the providers;[58] and dashboard flagged patients with specified alerts, such as isolation or persistent symptoms, based on movement and communication or if patient’s response indicates thoughts of self-harm.[59]

Diagnostic errors are another major problem in the healthcare system and patient safety, with most patients experiencing at least one diagnostic error in their lifetime.[60] AI promises to help physicians accurately diagnose medical conditions in their patients and treat disease at an early stage. By deploying machine learning applications and other AI methodologies, integration of the EHR-integrated PGHD flows into a single descriptive and predictive data analysis and modeling framework that can generate better algorithms for care.[61]

### Challenges

While leveraging AI in the application of the integrated EHRs and PGHD promises to benefit patients and clinicians, challenges must be overcome to realize that potential. The large volume of data requires stakeholders to determine and invest in data storage and technical architecture to support the analysis, which can be used to serve clinical use and workflow redesign.[62] In addition, to review the PGHD, health care providers may have to allocate time from the actual patient visit that is not remunerated separately.[63]

Given the variations in accuracy, usability, and validity, some PGHD may not yet be fit for clinical use where data quality is paramount.[64] The quality of the data collected by a home monitoring device may be insufficient.[65] For example, home monitoring of heart failure patients has been broadly used, but the outcome has not been improved.[45] The lack of efficacy may be fed in part by excessive reliance on remote monitoring of weights and symptoms, which are likely late markers of incipient heart failure decompensation.

Undeveloped interoperability standards are one of the challenges of PGHD. Some systems develop their own technical infrastructure for PGHD.[66] The lack of standards that fully address PGHD use cases and consensus on which interoperability standards to use lead to variations in data representation and coding that limit the exchange, normalization, and completeness of the integrated data. This hinders the system’s ability to draw valuable insights. The lack of standardized terminology and format for PGHD also limits secondary uses of the data in research studies and clinical trials.[67]

Ensuring the security and privacy of PGHD is also a challenge. EHR-integrated PGHD may be at risk for security breaches that could affect data integrity and expose the data to access for malicious purposes because they may not subject to the same security regulatory framework as HIPAA-regulated entities.[68] Concerns include insecure points of data collection and movement that potentially expose the device or the clinician’s information system to pollutants. In addition, there is growing potential for risks related to unauthorized access, including cyber threats.

### Recommendations

Using AI to clean and filter the PGHD before integration is helpful to reduce the volume of the data streams. To prevent the duplication of records when integrating PGHD with EHR, clinicians and researchers can employ AI-assisted patient matching techniques. Current procedures that use statistical algorithms to match data in local EHR systems with PGHD have shown increased levels of reliability. Technologies like the application programming interfaces (APIs) are portable packages of code that make it possible to add AI functionality to existing software packages and products.[69] They can add capabilities for image recognition to home security systems, calling out patterns and insights of interest in PGHD. APIs could also facilitate data accuracy, privacy, and security by their authentication function. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) is leading a PCOR Trust Fund project on Patient Matching, Aggregating, and Linking that aims to use APIs to enable linking of patient data, including PGHD, to other clinical and claims data.[70] AI tools are capable of cleaning integrated data and simplifying the process of ensuring data are complete and prepared for analysis. These electronic processes reduce the volume of data and amount of effort required to clean and manage the integrated system and reduce the potential for human errors.

User verification solutions, such as biometric authentication and multi-step identity verification, could increase data accuracy and validity. Graphical processing units (GPU) provide outstanding computing power for iterative processing,[71] which enables the integration of PGHD and EHR, health information exchange (HIE), and higher speed calculation. Big data companies enable the use of predictive analytics such as natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) on structured or unstructured data, coupled with GPUs, to help doctors and hospitals make their data more usable.[72] Data brokers, gateways, and aggregators could assess and manage data lineage and accuracy.[73] Research has also shown that the accuracy of AI applications and models could be developed with greater accuracy if the algorithms were to be shared publicly.[74]

The emerging data exchange standard, Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), and APIs provide opportunities to flexibly create software that securely pulls discrete data from the EHR into third-party software.[75] FHIR could be used to improve the presentation and visualization of the integrated data. FHIR’s latest extensions, SMART Markers and SMART-on-FHIR, are also approaches developed to streamline and simplify data integration.[75] The interface needs to have digital flexibility so that data exchange is convenient and versatile.[76] Leveraging standards-based data exchange through interoperability could potentially solve both the interoperability challenges as well as ease PGHD integration,[77] making it an achievable goal for more health care systems. [78]

Blockchain is a list of records that are linked together using cryptography, which is a distributed ledger—write once and never erase.[79] Blockchain promotes health data management,[80] provenance, exchange, and sharing.[81] It can also be leveraged to improve the privacy and security of EHR-integrated PGHD.[82] This emerging technology creates a distributed, digital ledger of cryptographically secure transactions and provides solutions that support security, privacy, and interoperability between EHRs and IoT devices while enabling trust in the validity of the data and its source.[83] Direct Secure Messaging, which was developed in 2010 under ONC’s Direct Project, could achieve security, privacy, data integrity, and user authentication during the exchange of health information over the Internet.[78]

## DISCUSSION

PGHD provides the potential for a holistic perspective of people’s health conditions by presenting rich information about their lives. PGHD captured by digital health and informatics tools, such as wearable devices, portable point-of-care devices, smartphone apps, PROs through online questionnaires, and connected IoTs, can allow patients to become more engaged in the process of receiving health care.[84] The AI-driven application of the EHR-integrated PGHD has the potential to close some health care gaps caused by the limitation of EHRs and support personalized medicine, including empowering patients and families to engage via shared decision-making, improving patient-provider relationships, and reducing the time and costs of clinical visits. Challenges mainly stem from the large volume of integrated data, data standards, data exchange and interoperability, security and privacy, interpretation, and meaningful use. In addition, the use of PGHD must be implemented in a way that prevents the exacerbation of health disparities.[85] Pernicious disparities, such as gender or race differences in health conditions related to social inequality within health data, have negative impacts on AI model performance and results.[86] Developers of such software should draw heavily from research in the fields of user-focused design and human-computer interaction to create intuitive data visualizations that focus on important clinical information and allow health care providers to identify patterns that provide clinically meaningful insights.

The use of PGHD in health care is at a promising stage and inevitable but needs further work for widespread adoption and seamless integration into health care systems. AI has the capacity to optimize PGHD integration into EHRs considering resources, standards for data exchange, security and privacy, and clinical workflows. With the EHR-integrated PGHD, AI can help transform health care by improving diagnosis, treatment, and the delivery of clinical care. AI-based computing systems can greatly improve clinicians’ abilities to diagnose their patients’ health issues, classify risks at a patient level by drawing on the power of the integrated data, and provide much-needed support to clinics and hospitals in under-resourced areas.[87] AI can also expand the operational capacity of EHR-integrated PGHD systems and streamline manual tasks in the health care system to boost productivity.[88]

EHR-integrated PGHD allows for transformation from historically aggregated, population-based data to individual, longitudinal data, and more granular data, where more advanced methodologies need to be applied to identify patterns, changes, and outliers.[89] AI provides advanced methodologies for interpreting EHR-integrated PGHD, including predictive analytics (which uses various techniques to predict future events based on existing large data sets), machine learning (which uses computer systems to complete tasks relying on inferences over time), and deep learning (which focuses on learning data representations), and other complex analyses. PGHD allows patients, caregivers, and families become part of the integrated health care system by incorporating richer information from time and space dimensions.[90]

## CONCLUSION

The use of PGHD in health care is at a promising stage but needs further work for widespread adoption and seamless integration into health care systems. AI-driven, EHR-integrated PGHD systems can greatly improve the capacity to deal with the large volume of data, control data quality, enable data exchange with better interoperability, ensure security and privacy, make understandable interpretations, and generate more meaningful use for health care. With EHR-integrated PGHD, AI can help transform health care by improving clinical decision support, health care quality, and patient safety. Further efforts are needed to understand how EHR-integrated PGHD systems can better support health care with the assistance of AI.

## FUNDING

None.

## CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT

J.Y. designed the study, developed the review protocol and search strategies, screened the references, extracted the data, assessed the quality of the included references, and contributed to the analyses. All the authors were involved in the screening process of the references, extracted the data, and the writing of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None.

## Data Availability

This is a review article.

## Supplemental Tables

View this table:
[Supplemental Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/03/2024.05.01.24306690/T5)

Supplemental Table 1. Search Strategy Outline

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank Linda O’Dwyer for her help with the development of the search strategies.

*   Received May 1, 2024.
*   Revision received May 1, 2024.
*   Accepted May 3, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Tiase, V.L., et al., Patient-generated health data and electronic health record integration: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ open, 2019. 9(12): p. e033073.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiOS8xMi9lMDMzMDczIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDUvMDMvMjAyNC4wNS4wMS4yNDMwNjY5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

2.  2.Ye, J., et al., A portable urine analyzer based on colorimetric detection. Analytical Methods, 2017. 9(16): p. 2464–2471.
    
    

3.  3.Shapiro, M., et al., Patient-generated health data. RTI International, April, 2012.
    
    

4.  4.Deering, M.J.,  E. Siminerio, and  S. Weinstein, Issue brief: Patient-generated health data and health IT. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 2013. 20.
    
    

5.  5.Ye, J., et al., Characteristics and Patterns of Retention in Hypertension Care in Primary Care Settings From the Hypertension Treatment in Nigeria Program. JAMA Network Open, 2022. 5(9): p. e2230025–e2230025.
    
    

6.  6.Ye, J., et al., Optimizing Longitudinal Retention in Care Among Patients With Hypertension in Primary Healthcare Settings: Findings From the Hypertension Treatment in Nigeria Program. Circulation, 2022. 146(Suppl_1): p. A13217–A13217.
    
    

7.  7.Lordon, R.J., et al., How patient-generated health data and patient-reported outcomes affect patient–clinician relationships: a systematic review. Health informatics journal, 2020. 26(4): p. 2689–2706.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

8.  8.Ye, J., et al., Predicting mortality in critically ill patients with diabetes using machine learning and clinical notes. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2020. 20(11): p. 1–7.
    
    

9.  9.Jiang, F., et al., Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke and vascular neurology, 2017. 2(4).
    
    

10. 10.Ye, J. and  L.N. Sanchez-Pinto. Three data-driven phenotypes of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome preserved from early childhood to middle adulthood. in AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. 2020. American Medical Informatics Association.
    
    

11. 11.Chen, H., et al., The rise of deep learning in drug discovery. Drug discovery today, 2018. 23(6): p. 1241–1250.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.drudis.2018.01.039&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29366762&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

12. 12.Vaishya, R., et al., Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications for COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 2020. 14(4): p. 337–339.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.012&link_type=DOI) 

13. 13.He, J., et al., The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nature medicine, 2019. 25(1): p. 30–36.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-018-0307-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30617336&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

14. 14.Luca, M.,  J. Kleinberg, and  S. Mullainathan, Algorithms need managers, too. Harvard business review, 2016. 94(1): p. 20.
    
    

15. 15.Berner, E.S., Clinical decision support systems. Vol. 233. 2007: Springer.
    
    

16. 16.Baker, A., Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Vol. 323. 2001: British Medical Journal Publishing Group.
    
    

17. 17.Kawamoto, K., et al., Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. Bmj, 2005. 330(7494): p. 765.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMzAvNzQ5NC83NjUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNS8wMy8yMDI0LjA1LjAxLjI0MzA2NjkwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

18. 18.Services, I.o.M.D.o.H.C., et al., Medicare: a strategy for quality assurance, volume ii: sources and methods. Vol. 2. 1990: National Academy Press.
    
    

19. 19.World Health Organization, Handbook for national quality policy and strategy: a practical approach for developing policy and strategy to improve quality of care. 2018.
    
    

20. 20.Marjoua, Y. and  K.J. Bozic, Brief history of quality movement in US healthcare. Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2012. 5(4): p. 265–273.
    
    

21. 21.Ye, J., et al., Interventions and contextual factors to improve retention in care for patients with hypertension in primary care: Hermeneutic systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 2024: p. 107880.
    
    

22. 22.Concannon, T.W., et al., A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. 29(12): p. 1692–1701.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24893581&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

23. 23.Vincent, C., Patient safety. 2011: John Wiley & Sons.
    
    

24. 24.World Health Organization, Patient safety. 2003, World Health Organization.
    
    

25. 25.Donaldson, M.S.,  J.M. Corrigan, and  L.T. Kohn, To err is human: building a safer health system. 2000.
    
    

26. 26.Makary, M.A. and  M. Daniel, Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. Bmj, 2016. 353.
    
    

27. 27.Tiase, V.L., et al., Patient-generated health data and electronic health record integration: a scoping review. JAMIA Open, 2020.
    
    

28. 28.Moher, D., et al., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine, 2009. 6(7): p. e1000097.
    
    

29. 29.Health, U.D.o., et al., Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2006. 4: p. 1–20.
    
    

30. 30.Kluetz, P.G., et al., Focusing on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms. Clinical Cancer Research, 2016. 22(7): p. 1553–1558.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImNsaW5jYW5yZXMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMjIvNy8xNTUzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDUvMDMvMjAyNC4wNS4wMS4yNDMwNjY5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

31. 31.Yu, K.-H.,  A.L. Beam, and  I.S. Kohane, Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nature biomedical engineering, 2018. 2(10): p. 719–731.
    
    

32. 32.Casey, J.A., et al., Using electronic health records for population health research: a review of methods and applications. Annual review of public health, 2016. 37.
    
    

33. 33.Ye, J., Pediatric Mental and Behavioral Health in the Period of Quarantine and Social Distancing With COVID-19. JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 2020. 3(2): p. e19867.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2196/19867&link_type=DOI) 

34. 34.Cohen, D.J., et al., Integrating patient-generated health data into clinical care settings or clinical decision-making: lessons learned from project healthdesign. JMIR human factors, 2016. 3(2): p. e5919.
    
    

35. 35.Basch, E., et al., Patient-reported outcomes in cancer drug development and US regulatory review: perspectives from industry, the Food and Drug Administration, and the patient. JAMA oncology, 2015. 1(3): p. 375–379.
    
    

36. 36.Bowling, A., Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of public health, 2005. 27(3): p. 281–291.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/pubmed/fdi031&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15870099&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231762400005&link_type=ISI) 

37. 37.Chung, A.E. and  E.M. Basch, Potential and challenges of patient-generated health data for high-quality cancer care. Journal of oncology practice, 2015. 11(3): p. 195–197.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoiam9wIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjExLzMvMTk1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDUvMDMvMjAyNC4wNS4wMS4yNDMwNjY5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

38. 38.McCann, L., et al., Patients’ perceptions and experiences of using a mobile phone-based advanced symptom management system (ASyMS©) to monitor and manage chemotherapy related toxicity. European journal of cancer care, 2009. 18(2): p. 156–164.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.00938.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19267731&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000265455500009&link_type=ISI) 

39. 39.Wolfe, A., Institute of Medicine report: crossing the quality chasm: a new health care system for the 21st century. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 2001. 2(3): p. 233–235.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/152715440100200312&link_type=DOI) 

40. 40.Haghi, M.,  K. Thurow, and  R. Stoll, Wearable devices in medical internet of things: scientific research and commercially available devices. Healthcare informatics research, 2017. 23(1): p. 4.
    
    

41. 41.Ye, J., et al., Identifying Contextual Factors and Strategies for Practice Facilitation in Primary Care Quality Improvement Using an Informatics-Driven Model: Framework Development and Mixed Methods Case Study. JMIR Human Factors, 2022. 9(2): p. e32174.
    
    

42. 42.Dinh-Le, C., et al., Wearable health technology and electronic health record integration: scoping review and future directions. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. 7(9): p. e12861.
    
    

43. 43.Schmidlen, T., et al., Patient assessment of chatbots for the scalable delivery of genetic counseling. Journal of genetic counseling, 2019. 28(6): p. 1166–1177.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

44. 44.Bohr, A. and  K. Memarzadeh, The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications, in Artificial Intelligence in healthcare. 2020, Elsevier. p. 25–60.
    
    

45. 45.Hashimoto, D.A., et al., Artificial intelligence in surgery: promises and perils. Annals of surgery, 2018. 268(1): p. 70.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/SLA.0000000000002693&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29389679&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

46. 46.Frendø, M., et al., Decentralized virtual reality training of mastoidectomy improves cadaver dissection performance: a prospective, controlled cohort study. Otology & Neurotology, 2020. 41(4): p. 476–481.
    
    

47. 47.Keckler, S.L. Patient and provider use of electronic care plans generated from patient-reported outcomes. in Oncology nursing forum. 2019. Oncology Nursing Society.
    
    

48. 48.Blackford, A.L.,  A.W. Wu, and  C. Snyder, Interpreting and acting on PRO results in clinical practice: lessons learned from the PatientViewpoint system and beyond. Medical care, 2019. 57(Suppl 5 1): p. S46.
    
    

49. 49.World Health Organization, Towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care: Draft global patient safety action plan (pp. 2021–2030). 2021.
    
    

50. 50.Fagundes, C.P., et al., Symptom recovery after thoracic surgery: Measuring patient-reported outcomes with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2015. 150(3): p. 613–619. e2.
    
    

51. 51.Andy, Y.-Y.L., et al. Continuous, personalized healthcare integrated platform. In TENCON 2012 IEEE region 10 conference. 2012. IEEE.
    
    

52. 52.Basch, E., et al., Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007. 25(34): p. 5374–5380.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIyNS8zNC81Mzc0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDUvMDMvMjAyNC4wNS4wMS4yNDMwNjY5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

53. 53.Adams, W.G., et al. TLC-Asthma: an integrated information system for patient-centered monitoring, case management, and point-of-care decision support. in AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. 2003. American Medical Informatics Association.
    
    

54. 54.Barrett, M., et al., AIR Louisville: addressing asthma with technology, crowdsourcing, cross-sector collaboration, and policy. Health Affairs, 2018. 37(4): p. 525–534.
    
    

55. 55.Lv, N., et al., Personalized hypertension management using patient-generated health data integrated with electronic health records (EMPOWER-H): six-month pre-post study. Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. 19(9): p. e311.
    
    

56. 56.Swendeman, D., et al., HIV care providers’ attitudes regarding mobile phone applications and web-based dashboards to support patient self-management and care coordination: results from a qualitative feasibility study. Journal of HIV and AIDS, 2016. 2(4).
    
    

57. 57.Quinn, C.C., et al., WellDoc™ mobile diabetes management randomized controlled trial: change in clinical and behavioral outcomes and patient and physician satisfaction. Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2008. 10(3): p. 160–168.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/dia.2008.0283&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18473689&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256611200002&link_type=ISI) 

58. 58.Jiang, Y., et al., Using mobile health technology to deliver decision support for self-monitoring after lung transplantation. International journal of medical informatics, 2016. 94: p. 164–171.
    
    

59. 59.Bauer, A.M., et al., Acceptability of mHealth augmentation of Collaborative Care: A mixed methods pilot study. General hospital psychiatry, 2018. 51: p. 22–29.
    
    

60. 60.National Academies of Sciences, E. and Medicine, Improving diagnosis in health care. 2015: National Academies Press.
    
    

61. 61.Ye, J. Design and development of an informatics-driven implementation research framework for primary care studies. in AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. 2021. American Medical Informatics Association.
    
    

62. 62.Nittas, V., et al., Electronic patient-generated health data to facilitate prevention and health promotion: a scoping review protocol. BMJ open, 2018. 8(8): p. e021245.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOC84L2UwMjEyNDUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNS8wMy8yMDI0LjA1LjAxLjI0MzA2NjkwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

63. 63.Ye, J., The impact of electronic health record–integrated patient-generated health data on clinician burnout. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2021.
    
    

64. 64.Lavallee, D.C., et al., mHealth and patient generated health data: stakeholder perspectives on opportunities and barriers for transforming healthcare. Mhealth, 2020. 6.
    
    

65. 65.Celler, B.G. and  R.S. Sparks, Home telemonitoring of vital signs—technical challenges and future directions. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 2014. 19(1): p. 82–91.
    
    

66. 66.Sayeed, R.,  D. Gottlieb, and  K.D. Mandl, SMART Markers: collecting patient-generated health data as a standardized property of health information technology. NPJ digital medicine, 2020. 3(1): p. 1–8.
    
    

67. 67.Ye, J., et al., The Roles of Electronic Health Records for Clinical Trials in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: Scoping Review. JMIR Medical Informatics, 2023. 11: p. e47052.
    
    

68. 68.Petersen, C. and  P. DeMuro, Legal and regulatory considerations associated with use of patient-generated health data from social media and mobile health (mHealth) devices. Applied clinical informatics, 2015. 6(1): p. 16.
    
    

69. 69.Neinstein, A., et al., Deploying patient-facing application programming interfaces: thematic analysis of health system experiences. Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. 22(4): p. e16813.
    
    

70. 70.Amoozegar, J., et al., Building Data Capacity for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research in HHS: A Formative Evaluation of 2012-2016 Projects. Washington, DC: Division of Healthcare Quality and Outcomes Office of Health Policy/ASPE/HHS, 2017.
    
    

71. 71.Tasora, A.,  D. Negrut, and  M. Anitescu, Large-scale parallel multi-body dynamics with frictional contact on the graphical processing unit. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K: Journal of Multi-body Dynamics, 2008. 222(4): p. 315–326.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1243/14644193JMBD154&link_type=DOI) 

72. 72.Davenport, T. and  R. Kalakota, The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future healthcare journal, 2019. 6(2): p. 94.
    
    

73. 73.Yue, X., et al., Healthcare data gateways: found healthcare intelligence on blockchain with novel privacy risk control. Journal of medical systems, 2016. 40(10): p. 1–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10916-015-0384-2&link_type=DOI) 

74. 74.Kitamura, F.C.,  I. Pan, and  T.L. Kline, Reproducible Artificial Intelligence Research Requires Open Communication of Complete Source Code. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, 2020. 2(4): p. e200060.
    
    

75. 75.Braunstein, M.L., Healthcare in the age of interoperability: the promise of fast healthcare interoperability resources. IEEE pulse, 2018. 9(6): p. 24–27.
    
    

76. 76.Mandel, J.C., et al., SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2016. 23(5): p. 899–908.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jamia/ocv189&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26911829&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

77. 77.Sujansky, W. and  D. Kunz, A standard-based model for the sharing of patient-generated health information with electronic health records. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 2015. 19(1): p. 9–25.
    
    

78. 78.Plastiras, P. and  D. O’Sullivan, Exchanging personal health data with electronic health records: a standardized information model for patient generated health data and observations of daily living. International journal of medical informatics, 2018. 120: p. 116–125.
    
    

79. 79.Kuo, T.-T.,  H. Zavaleta Rojas, and  L. Ohno-Machado, Comparison of blockchain platforms: a systematic review and healthcare examples. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2019. 26(5): p. 462–478.
    
    

80. 80.Ivan, D. Moving toward a blockchain-based method for the secure storage of patient records. in ONC/NIST Use of Blockchain for Healthcare and Research Workshop. Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States: ONC/NIST. 2016.
    
    

81. 81.Zhang, P., et al., FHIRChain: applying blockchain to securely and scalably share clinical data. Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2018. 16: p. 267–278.
    
    

82. 82.Mettler, M. Blockchain technology in healthcare: The revolution starts here. in 2016 IEEE 18th international conference on e-health networking, applications and services (Healthcom). 2016. IEEE.
    
    

83. 83.Vazirani, A.A., et al., Implementing blockchains for efficient health care: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. 21(2): p. e12439.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2196/12439&link_type=DOI) 

84. 84.Ye, J. and  Q. Ma. The effects and patterns among mobile health, social determinants, and physical activity: a nationally representative cross-sectional study. in AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. 2021. American Medical Informatics Association.
    
    

85. 85.Ye, J. and  Z. Ren, Examining the impact of sex differences and the COVID-19 pandemic on health and health care: findings from a national cross-sectional study. JAMIA Open, 2022.
    
    

86. 86.Pfohl, S., et al. Creating fair models of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 2019.
    
    

87. 87.Ahuja, A.S., The impact of artificial intelligence in medicine on the future role of the physician. PeerJ, 2019. 7: p. e7702.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

88. 88.Dwivedi, Y.K., et al., Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 2019: p. 101994.
    
    

89. 89.Lai, A.M., et al., Present and future trends in consumer health informatics and patient-generated health data. Yearbook of medical informatics, 2017. 26(1): p. 152.
    
    

90. 90.Reading, M.J. and  J.A. Merrill, Converging and diverging needs between patients and providers who are collecting and using patient-generated health data: an integrative review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2018. 25(6): p. 759–771.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jamia/ocy006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29471330&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

91. 91.Beam, A.L. and  I.S. Kohane, Big data and machine learning in health care. Jama, 2018. 319(13): p. 1317–1318.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2017.18391&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29532063&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

92. 92.Ahmad, M.A.,  C. Eckert, and  A. Teredesai. Interpretable machine learning in healthcare. in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM international conference on bioinformatics, computational biology, and health informatics. 2018.
    
    

93. 93.Chen, M., et al., Disease prediction by machine learning over big data from healthcare communities. Ieee Access, 2017. 5: p. 8869–8879.
    
    

94. 94.Arbabshirani, M.R., et al., Advanced machine learning in action: identification of intracranial hemorrhage on computed tomography scans of the head with clinical workflow integration. NPJ digital medicine, 2018. 1(1): p. 1–7.
    
    

95. 95.Obermeyer, Z. and  E.J. Emanuel, Predicting the future—big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. The New England journal of medicine, 2016. 375(13): p. 1216.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMp1606181&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27682033&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

96. 96.LeCun, Y.,  Y. Bengio, and  G. Hinton, Deep learning. nature, 2015. 521(7553): p. 436–444.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature14539&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26017442&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

97. 97.Razzak, M.I.,  S. Naz, and  A. Zaib, Deep learning for medical image processing: Overview, challenges and the future. Classification in BioApps, 2018: p. 323–350.
    
    

98. 98.Bae, H.-S.,  H.-J. Lee, and  S.-G. Lee. Voice recognition based on adaptive MFCC and deep learning. in 2016 IEEE 11th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA). 2016. IEEE.
    
    

99. 99.Szeliski, R., Computer vision: algorithms and applications. 2010: Springer Science & Business Media.
    
    

100.100.Chowdhury, G.G., Natural language processing. Annual review of information science and technology, 2003. 37(1): p. 51–89.
    
    

101.101.Ye, J., et al., Leveraging natural language processing and geospatial time series model to analyze COVID-19 vaccination sentiment dynamics on Tweets. JAMIA Open, 2023. 6(2): p. ooad023.
    
    

102.102.Ye, J., et al., Development and Application of Natural Language Processing on Unstructured Data in Hypertension: A Scoping Review. medRxiv, 2024: p. 2024.02. 27.24303468.
    
    

103.103.Manaris, B., Natural language processing: A human-computer interaction perspective, in Advances in Computers. 1998, Elsevier. p. 1–66.
    
    

104.104.Jensen, R.E., et al., The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Medical care, 2015. 53(2): p. 153.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MLR.0000000000000289&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25588135&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

105.105.Rajalakshmi, R., et al., Automated diabetic retinopathy detection in smartphone-based fundus photography using artificial intelligence. Eye, 2018. 32(6): p. 1138–1144.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

106.106.Ye, J., et al., Multimodal Data Hybrid Fusion and Natural Language Processing for Clinical Prediction Models. medRxiv, 2023: p. 2023.08.24.23294597.
    
    

107.107.Bi, W.L., et al., Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: clinical challenges and applications. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 2019. 69(2): p. 127–157.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

108.108.Johnson, K.W., et al., Artificial intelligence in cardiology. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2018. 71(23): p. 2668–2679.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czo0OiJhY2NqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3MS8yMy8yNjY4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDUvMDMvMjAyNC4wNS4wMS4yNDMwNjY5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

109.109.Nielson, J.L., et al., Uncovering precision phenotype-biomarker associations in traumatic brain injury using topological data analysis. PloS one, 2017. 12(3): p. e0169490.
    
    

110.110.Ye, J., Advancing mental health and psychological support for health care workers using digital technologies and platforms. JMIR Formative Research, 2021. 5(6): p. e22075.
    
    

111.111.Ye, J., Patient Safety of Perioperative Medication Through the Lens of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence. JMIR Perioperative Medicine, 2023. 6: p. e34453.
    
    

112.112.Wood, W.A.,  A.V. Bennett, and  E. Basch, Emerging uses of patient generated health data in clinical research. Molecular oncology, 2015. 9(5): p. 1018–1024.
    
    

113.113.Ye, J., et al., Identifying Practice Facilitation Delays and Barriers in Primary Care Quality Improvement. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 2020. 33(5): p. 655–664.
    
    

114.114.Basch, E., et al., Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 2018. 38: p. 122–134.
    
    

115.115.Melstrom, L.G., et al., Patient generated health data and electronic health record integration in oncologic surgery: A call for artificial intelligence and machine learning. Journal of surgical oncology, 2021. 123(1): p. 52–60.
    
    

116.116.Bot, B.M., et al., The mPower study, Parkinson disease mobile data collected using ResearchKit. Scientific data, 2016. 3(1): p. 1–9.
    
    

117.117.Bergenstal, R.M., et al., Remote application and use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring by adults with type 2 diabetes in a virtual diabetes clinic. Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2021. 23(2): p. 128–132.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/dia.2020.0396&link_type=DOI) 

118.118.Lee, T.C., et al., Telemedicine based remote home monitoring after liver transplantation: results of a randomized prospective trial. Annals of surgery, 2019. 270(3): p. 564–572.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/SLA.0000000000003425&link_type=DOI) 

119.119.Ye, J.,  Z. Wang, and  J. Hai, Social Networking Service, Patient-Generated Health Data, and Population Health Informatics: National Cross-sectional Study of Patterns and Implications of Leveraging Digital Technologies to Support Mental Health and Well-being. Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. 24(4): p. e30898.
    
    

120.120.Ye, J., Health Information System’s Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic in China: A National Cross-sectional Study. Applied Clinical Informatics, 2021. 12(02): p. 399–406.
    
    

121.121.Archer, N., et al., Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2011. 18(4): p. 515–522.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000105&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21672914&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

122.122.Investigators, A.o.U.R.P., The “All of Us” research program. New England Journal of Medicine, 2019. 381(7): p. 668–676.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMsr1809937&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31412182&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 

123.123.Wu, A.W., et al. Advances in the use of patient reported outcome measures in electronic health records. in PCORI National Workshop to Advance the Use of PRO Measures in Electronic Health Records. 2013.
    
    

124.124.Sands, D. and  J. Wald, Transforming health care delivery through consumer engagement, health data transparency, and patient-generated health information. Yearbook of medical informatics, 2014. 9(1): p. 170.
    
    

125.125.Steinbrook, R., Health care and the American recovery and reinvestment act. New England Journal of Medicine, 2009. 360(11): p. 1057–1060.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMp0900665&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19224738&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2F2024.05.01.24306690.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000264051000001&link_type=ISI) 

126.126.Congress, U., Health information technology for economic and clinical health act. US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.
    
    

127.127.Zhou, Y.Y., et al., Improved quality at Kaiser Permanente through e-mail between physicians and patients. Health affairs, 2010. 29(7): p. 1370–1375.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToiaGVhbHRoYWZmIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjI5LzcvMTM3MCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA1LzAzLzIwMjQuMDUuMDEuMjQzMDY2OTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

128.128.Ye, J., The role of health technology and informatics in a global public health emergency: practices and implications from the COVID-19 pandemic. JMIR Medical Informatics, 2020. 8(7): p. e19866.
    
    

129.129.Ye, J.,  L. He, and  M. Beestrum, Implications for implementation and adoption of telehealth in developing countries: a systematic review of China’s practices and experiences. npj Digital Medicine, 2023. 6(1): p. 174.
    
    

130.130.Rosner, B.I.,  J.C. Kvedar, and  J. Adler-Milstein, Patient-generated health data earn a seat at the table: clinical adoption during the COVID-19 transition to telemedicine. Jamia Open, 2021. 4(4): p. ooab097.