ReviewJournal of global health2025
The potential role of AI in research priority setting exercises.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring variation in research priorities generated by AI tools.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Ideometrics: a scientific approach to generating, evaluating, and prioritising ideas.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Two decades of the CHNRI method (2006-2025): Tracking its evolution and contribution to the emerging field of ideometrics.Journal of global health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.