ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2025
AI's ongoing impact: Implications of AI's effects on health equity for women's healthcare providers.
Article in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 2025. 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.
- Federated multimodal AI for precision-equitable diabetes care.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the effects of the current use of artificial intelligence (AI) in women's health on health equity, specifically in primary and secondary prevention efforts among women. Methods: Two databases, Scopus and PubMed, were used to conduct this narrative review. The keywords included "artificial intelligence," "machine learning," "women's health," "screen," "risk factor," and "prevent," and papers were filtered only to include those about AI models that general practitioners may use. Results: Of the 18 articles reviewed, 8 articles focused on risk factor modeling under primary prevention, and 10 articles focused on screening tools under secondary prevention. Gaps were found in the ability of AI models to train using large, diverse datasets that were reflective of the population it is intended for. Lack of these datasets was frequently identified as a limitation in the papers reviewed ( Conclusions: Minority, low-income women have poor access to health care and are, therefore, not well represented in the datasets AI uses to train, which risks introducing bias in its output. To mitigate this, more datasets should be developed to validate AI models, and AI in women's health should expand to include conditions that affect men and women to provide a gendered lens on these conditions. Public health, medical, and technology entities need to collaborate to regulate the development and use of AI in health care at a standard that reduces bias.
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.