Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32393561›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine2020

Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Research: A Scoping Review.

Jacqueline K Kueper, Amanda L Terry, Merrick Zwarenstein, Daniel J Lizotte

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Overdiagnosis in atrial fibrillation screening with wearables.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. AI-powered tools in family medicine: Bridging technology and practice.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Jacqueline K KueperDepartments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Computer Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada jkueper@uwo.ca.
Amanda L TerryDepartments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Family Medicine, Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Merrick ZwarensteinDepartments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Family Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel J LizotteDepartments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Computer Science, Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Statistical & Actuarial Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRapid increases in technology and data motivate the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to primary care, but no comprehensive review exists to guide these efforts. Our objective was to assess the nature and extent of the body of research on AI for primary care.

methodsWe performed a scoping review, searching 11 published or gray literature databases with terms pertaining to AI (eg, machine learning, bayes* network) and primary care (eg, general pract*, nurse). We performed title and abstract and then full-text screening using Covidence. Studies had to involve research, include both AI and primary care, and be published in Eng-lish. We extracted data and summarized studies by 7 attributes: purpose(s); author appointment(s); primary care function(s); intended end user(s); health condition(s); geographic location of data source; and AI subfield(s).

resultsOf 5,515 unique documents, 405 met eligibility criteria. The body of research focused on developing or modifying AI methods (66.7%) to support physician diagnostic or treatment recommendations (36.5% and 13.8%), for chronic conditions, using data from higher-income countries. Few studies (14.1%) had even a single author with a primary care appointment. The predominant AI subfields were supervised machine learning (40.0%) and expert systems (22.2%).

conclusionsResearch on AI for primary care is at an early stage of maturity. For the field to progress, more interdisciplinary research teams with end-user engagement and evaluation studies are needed.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePrimary Health CareHumansInterdisciplinary Researchartificial intelligencebig datadata miningdecision supportdiagnosiselectronic health recordsfamily medicinehealth informaticshealth information technologyprimary carescoping reviewtreatment

Identifiers

PMID32393561
PMCPMC7213996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.