ArticlePLOS global public health2025
From algorithms to negotiations: Why health diplomacy must adapt.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health diplomacy traditionally relies on consensus-building across nations, yet the accelerating integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health systems poses new governance challenges. Rapidly changing geopolitical conditions-exemplified by shifts in U.S. global health funding and the expansion of AI beyond national boundaries-underscore the urgency of rethinking traditional approaches. This paper, based on insights from the Prince Mahidol Award Conference 2025 side meeting on "Navigating the Future: AI & Global Health Diplomacy," examines how AI can reshape the practice of health diplomacy, both empowering and unsettling global health objectives. We first explore the promise of AI in enhancing disease surveillance, resource allocation, and progress toward universal health coverage. However, inadequate governance can exacerbate inequalities, particularly if AI remains in the hands of profit-focused enterprises or if digital divides persist. Health diplomacy, therefore, must expand its purview to include technical literacy, data ethics, and robust regulatory frameworks that safeguard equity and transparency in AI design and deployment. To illustrate these dynamics, we emphasise the interplay of social, political, commercial, and digital determinants of health, each feeding into AI-driven innovations. Strong diplomatic engagement is critical to ensuring that AI becomes a tool for mutual benefit rather than a catalyst for further fragmentation. Effective policies must integrate environmental sustainability considerations alongside cross-sector collaboration. We conclude that, although AI cannot replace the vital human element of negotiation and trust-building, it can substantially enhance global health outcomes when governed ethically and inclusively. The future of health diplomacy, shaped by AI, requires agile adaptation and unified strategies to preserve equity and planetary well-being.
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.