ReviewNeurology2025
Health Equity Considerations in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient navigation in neuro-oncology: A scoping review of programs supporting patients with CNS tumors.Equity neuroscience · 2026Article
- Recommended guidelines concerning artificial intelligence and health equity: a scoping review.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Equity in Neurotoxicity Care in the Era of Cancer Immunotherapy.Seminars in neurology · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- Bias and Fairness Across the Healthcare AI Lifecycle: A Clinician-Oriented Review.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- Understanding financial toxicity in cancer care through a social-ecological lens.Current opinion in oncology · 2026Review
- Transforming lung transplantation with artificial intelligence: a narrative review from organ allocation to post-transplant management.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Current State of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Stroke: A Literature Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in public health: a foundational shift or a technocratic distraction?Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Human-centered AI in healthcare teams: integrating clinical oversight, EHR auditability, and reimbursement pathways for responsible adoption.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- An equity-aware generative AI copilot for digital public health surveillance.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Public perspectives on artificial intelligence in healthcare in the USA: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ digital health & AI · 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
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.