From algorithms to impact: A new vision for digital medicine

The pace with which digital tools and methods are evolving is unparalleled in human history. However, the distance between technological possibility and clinical reality increasing at a similar speed. Artificial intelligence (AI) models achieve expert-level performance on benchmarks. Digital biomarkers could detect disease signals years before symptoms emerge. Telemedicine platforms connect patients to specialists across continents. In laboratories and research groups around the world, thousands of predictive models and digital tools are being developed to support clinical decision-making. Yet for most clinicians beginning their morning rounds, remarkably little has changed. Bridging this gap is one of the central challenges of contemporary digital medicine. Digital Medicine has emerged as a discipline whose primary task is no longer simply to develop algorithms and demonstrate feasibility, but to translate digital innovations into robust, safe, and effective clinical applications. This translational challenge lies at the heart of the mission of Digital Medicine. The journal aims to provide a platform for rigorous research that advances not only technological development, but also the scientific, regulatory, and organizational processes required to integrate digital tools into everyday medical care. The following three priorities will shape this effort. DEMONSTRATING CLINICAL VALUE Many published algorithms yield excellent performance on retrospective data or benchmarking datasets. Common performance indicators of such algorithms usually include accuracy, sensitivity, or the area under the curve. While being important for a formal assessment, such performance metrics do not necessarily capture the true clinical value of digital interventions. What ultimately matters is whether digital tools improve patient outcomes, support clinical decision-making, or increase the efficiency and safety of healthcare delivery. Addressing these questions requires a stronger emphasis on prospective evaluation, pragmatic trials, and real-world evidence to demonstrate or refute their benefit for routine care. Establishing such evidence will be essential for building the trust required for widespread clinical adoption. IDENTIFICATION OF UNINTENDED EFFECTS OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES Most people perceive digital interventions as inherently benign. However, like all medical technologies, they can have unintended consequences. Algorithmic systems may propagate biases present in historical datasets or perform differently across patient populations. Decision-support tools may alter clinical workflows, influence physician autonomy, or introduce new forms of cognitive dependency. In addition, the increasing reliance on automated systems raises important questions about transparency, accountability, and responsibility in clinical decision-making. A mature field of digital medicine must therefore examine not only the benefits of digital technologies, but also their potential risks within complex sociotechnical healthcare environments. NAVIGATING REGULATORY COMPLEXITY Even when demonstrating strong technical performance, the implementation of digital tools in healthcare systems is difficult. Regulatory frameworks for software-based medical devices are complex, and can hardly capture the speed by which digital possibilities advance. We are confronted with a situation where regulatory frameworks designed for relatively binary decisions need to accommodate technologies that are designed to mimic- or even supersede- human intelligence. Adaptive AI systems learn and evolve after deployment, making them an extremely powerful tool. However, traditional models of one-time approval become insufficient in this context. New approaches to continuous evaluation, such as predetermined change control plans or lifecycle-based regulatory oversight, are being explored but remain in their early stages. “Digital Medicine” welcomes research that examines these evolving regulatory paradigms, analyzes their effectiveness, and proposes evidence-based improvements — including comparative studies across different regulatory jurisdictions. In summary, digital medicine is emerging as a new specialty at a critical moment where rapid and transformative technical innovations are met by the necessary constraints of a highly regulated medical environment. While the promise of these innovations is tempting, robust research is needed to outbalance the innovation speed on the one hand and demonstration of clear clinical benefit and safety on the other hand. The journal “Digital Medicine” seeks to contribute to this effort by fostering a scientific dialogue that moves the field beyond technological enthusiasm toward demonstrable clinical impact. We believe that the primary bottleneck in digital medicine is no longer technological capability, but rather our collective ability to generate the evidence, build the regulatory pathways, and design the organizational processes needed to translate that capability into patient benefit. Only by transforming algorithms to impact can the promise of digital medicine be fully realized. Acknowledgements None. Author Contributions Hinske LC: Conceptualization, Writing—Original draft preparation, Writing—Reviewing and Editing, Project administration. The author has read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Source of funding This work received no specific funding or financial support. Ethical approval Not applicable. Informed consent Not applicable. Conflict of Interest Ludwig C. Hinske is the editor-in-chief of the journal. The article was subject to the journal’s standard procedures, with peer review handled independently of the editor and the affiliated research groups. Use of large language models, AI and machine learning tools None declared. Data availability statement No additional data.