SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Do occupational health and safety tools that utilize artificial intelligence have a measurable impact on worker injury or illness? Findings from a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Machine Learning for Concurrent Screening of Elevated Work-Related Fatigue Using Routine Working-Hour and Occupational Health Data Among Manufacturing Workers: A Cross-Sectional Model Development and Internal Validation Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application of large language models as decision support tools in occupational health and safety management: a cohort study of industrial workers.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Artificial intelligence in the workplace: a living systematic review protocol on worker safety, health, and well-being implications.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Landscape of Artificial Intelligence Use for Occupational Health and Safety Practice in Two Canadian Provinces.American journal of industrial medicine · 2025Article
- Personalized AI for workplace health promotion: performance management and healthcare worker engagement through digital analytics.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Use of advanced technologies by occupational physicians in Brazil: a descriptive study.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMTArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) holds promise as a tool that can be used by practitioners in the field of occupational health and safety (OHS). This study aimed to identify AI applications specifically used for OHS and examine their impact on worker morbidity or mortality outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive systematic review. We searched six databases to identify published quantitative studies of OHS AI applications across the hierarchy of controls that were published between years 2018 to 2024. Title/abstract and full-text screening was conducted to identify eligible studies which were then assessed for quality and risk of bias and synthesized.
resultsOf the 1255 articles identified by our search, only two met eligibility criteria; one of which was appraised as medium quality and the other as low quality. The one medium quality study identified by our review was an AI-based chatbot health promotion tool which was shown to improve musculoskeletal symptoms. Our systematic review shows that we are at the early stages of understanding the role AI can play in OHS and it may be premature to recommend the wide-spread use of AI for health and safety practice within workplaces.
conclusionThere is a critical need for future research to unpack how considerations taken in the development and adoption of workplace AI tools for OHS can determine their effectiveness in addressing worker injury or illness. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023414422.
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.