ReviewPLOS digital health2025
Eliminating the AI digital divide by building local capacity.
Review in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Toward the Use of Real-World Data for Regulatory and HTA Decision-Making: Experiences and Recommendations from Six EU-Funded Projects.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in the EU Safe Hearts Plan: prediction alone is not enough.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- Explainability in context: calibrating appropriate trust and reliance in artificial intelligence.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Bias and Fairness Across the Healthcare AI Lifecycle: A Clinician-Oriented Review.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- Nurses' AI training acceptance and tool usage: a structural equation model of individual and hospital-level factors.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Correction: Eliminating the AI digital divide by building local capacity.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
47 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past few years, health delivery organizations (HDOs) have been adopting and integrating AI tools, including clinical tools for tasks like predicting risk of inpatient mortality and operational tools for clinical documentation, scheduling and revenue cycle management, to fulfill the quintuple aim. The expertise and resources to do so is often concentrated in academic medical centers, leaving patients and providers in lower-resource settings unable to fully realize the benefits of AI tools. There is a growing divide in HDO ability to conduct AI product lifecycle management, due to a gap in resources and capabilities (e.g., technical expertise, funding, data infrastructure) to do so. In previous technological shifts in the United States including electronic health record and telehealth adoption, there were similar disparities in rates of adoption between higher and lower-resource settings. The government responded to these disparities successfully by creating centers of excellence to provide technical assistance to HDOs in rural and underserved communities. Similarly, a hub-and-spoke network, connecting HDOs with technical, regulatory, and legal support services from vendors, law firms, other HDOs with more AI capabilities, etc. can enable all settings to be well equipped to adopt AI tools. Health AI Partnership (HAIP) is a multi-stakeholder collaborative seeking to promote the safe and effective use of AI in healthcare. HAIP has launched a pilot program implementing a hub-and-spoke network, but targeted public investment is needed to enable capacity building nationwide. As more HDOs are striving to utilize AI tools to improve care delivery, federal and state governments should support the development of hub-and-spoke networks to promote widespread, meaningful adoption of AI across diverse settings. This effort requires coordination among all entities in the health AI ecosystem to ensure these tools are implemented safely and effectively and that all HDOs realize the benefits of these tools.
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.