Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41211528›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025

Artificial Intelligence Techniques and Health Literacy: A Systematic Review.

Abigail Naa Amankwaa Abeo, Sophie Armstrong, Michael Scriney, Hannah Goss

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Quality of AI chatbot-generated information on hypersensitivity pneumonitis for clinical and patient use.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

4 authors.

Abigail Naa Amankwaa AbeoSchool of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Ireland.
Sophie ArmstrongSchool of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Ireland.
Michael ScrineySchool of Computing, Dublin City University, Ireland.
Hannah GossSchool of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in health literacy, highlighting limitations and future developments. Methods: A systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, was conducted searching 6 databases for studies published from January 1, 2014, through April 10, 2024. Data extracted included population characteristics, health literacy definitions and measurement, study objectives, AI techniques, and metrics. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted checklist. Results: From 1296 studies, 18 (1.4%) met inclusion criteria. These studies primarily evaluated text-based materials, including online articles, and electronic health records, with most materials in English, but also incorporated other languages. Artificial intelligence played various roles, including evaluating complexity, text simplification/readability enhancement, translation, and question-answering. Only 5 studies involved participant engagement. Seven studies provided a health literacy definition, consistently describing it as an individual's ability to obtain, understand, and use health information for informed decisions, often linking it to external factors. However, only 1 study incorporated an individual level health literacy measurement tool, whereas organizational level health literacy measurement remained largely overlooked. The AI techniques used included traditional machine learning, deep learning, and transformer-based models. Evaluation metrics were categorized into human evaluation, readability, and machine learning metrics. Conclusion: The review highlights AI's dynamic application in relation to health literacy; however, measurement of health literacy, at both an individual and organizational level, to evidence AI's effectiveness remains limited. In addition, future work should not only measure health literacy outcomes more rigorously but also pursue research on enhancing AI model performance, robust evaluation, and their practical implementation in real-world settings.

Identifiers

PMID41211528
PMCPMC12589913

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.