ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025
Artificial Intelligence Techniques and Health Literacy: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building health-literate artificial intelligence.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- The role of health literacy and attitudes toward artificial intelligence in the acceptance of telemedicine services among adults in Turkey: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Quality of AI chatbot-generated information on hypersensitivity pneumonitis for clinical and patient use.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2026Article
- AI Chatbots vs. Traditional Sources: Dental Health Literacy and Confidence Among Dental Patients-A Cross-Sectional Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Attitudes toward artificial intelligence tools in university students: associations with body appreciation and e-healthy diet literacy - implications for digital health education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- From information literacy to health literacy: AI-driven transformation in university libraries under digital public health-a perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- AI Health Literacy: a reflective framework for LLM-based generative AI in public health education and promotion.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- AI health literacy as a foundation for responsible AI in healthcare: a framework for trustworthy implementation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in public health education: current evidence, competencies, and a framework for responsible integration.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Assessing large language model responses to pediatric depression FAQs: a cross-sectional study on readability, accuracy, and sentiment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.