Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40476572›Full record

ReviewJournal of global health2025

The potential role of AI in research priority setting exercises.

John Garry, Mark Tomlinson, Maria Lohan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

John GarryQueen's University Belfast, Department of Politics and International Relations, Northern Ireland, UK.
Mark TomlinsonStellenbosch University, Institute for Life Course Health Research, Cape Town, South Africa.
Maria LohanQueen's University Belfast, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Northern Ireland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To help achieve the goals of accountability and research excellence, funding organisations often utilise evidence from research priority setting exercises (RPSEs), which distil, from data gathered from relevant stakeholders, a systematic and 'objective' rank-order of research priorities. RPSEs are, however, costly and labour-intensive. Also, critics of RPSEs have highlighted certain limitations: insufficient representation of difficult-to-reach stakeholders, especially in low- and middle-income countries; a lack of genuine stakeholder engagement; wide variation in the extent to which exercises are documented; a lack of specificity in the identified priorities; and minimal impact of the priorities. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT may potentially help, valuably complementing conventional RPSEs. While the opacity of AI decision-making is a limitation, advantages include speed, affordability, and highly inclusive distillation of the vastness of existing human knowledge. We encourage research identifying the extent to which AI can replicate conventional RPSEs. We suggest that AI tools could complement conventional approaches either at the initial question generation stage or in generating supplementary insights for reflection at the data analysis stage. Also, under conditions of high existing stakeholder engagement and an extant prevalence of conventional RPSEs, AI-only studies may be valuable.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth PrioritiesResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID40476572
PMCPMC12143114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.