Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41264894›Full record

ReviewNeurology2025

Health Equity Considerations in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.

Joshua Amit Budhu, Noriko Anderson, Chantale Branson, Marisela Elizabeth Dy-Hollins, Andres Jimenez-Gomez, Katherine Nearing, Faddi G Saleh Velez, Julia Staisch, Angela Wabulya, Adys Mendizabal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The neurologist of 2050: Rethinking the role in movement disorders in a technologically transformed society.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors.

Joshua Amit BudhuDepartment of Neurology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-8923-9784
Noriko AndersonDepartment of Neurology, University of California San Francisco.
Chantale BransonDepartment of Neurology, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Marisela Elizabeth Dy-HollinsDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.ORCID 0000-0002-5688-324X
Andres Jimenez-GomezDepartment of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. TX.
Katherine NearingDepartment of Neurology, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis.
Faddi G Saleh VelezDepartment of Neurology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.ORCID 0000-0002-2626-6259
Julia StaischOschner Neurology, New Orleans, LA.
Angela WabulyaDepartment of Neurology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.ORCID 0009-0007-4351-5521
Adys MendizabalNow with Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona; and.ORCID 0000-0001-5835-9831

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
MSK Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical OncologyK12CA184746 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI Omar Abdel-Wahab, Simon N. Powell · 2015 to 2026
$8.3M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA184746NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping neurology, offering opportunities to improve efficiency, expand access to care, and enhance clinical decision making. Yet, without deliberate safeguards, AI can perpetuate or exacerbate existing health disparities, especially for systemically marginalized populations. This article examines the dual potential of AI, as both a driver of innovation and a source of bias, in the context of neurologic care. Drawing on literature review, stakeholder consultations, and practical examples, we outline the risks of AI worsening health disparities stemming from biased data sets, nonrepresentative training populations, and opaque algorithms. We also highlight opportunities for AI to promote health equity, including early disease detection in underserved settings, language-access tools, improved clinical trial diversity, and targeted quality improvement interventions. We propose 3 guiding principles for the neurology community to ensure that AI serves as a driver of equity: (1) ensuring diverse perspectives and community engagement in AI development; (2) expanding AI education and training for neurologists; and (3) establishing ethical policy and governance mechanisms. These recommendations are intended for clinicians, researchers, educators, health system leaders, policymakers, and professional societies and provide actionable strategies to integrate equity into every stage of AI design, implementation, and oversight. By centering inclusion, transparency, and accountability, AI can be harnessed to improve equitable access to high-quality neurologic care and to address long-standing disparities in neurologic health outcomes.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth EquityNeurologyHealthcare DisparitiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID41264894
PMCPMC12636768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.