ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
The value for money of artificial intelligence-empowered precision medicine: a systematic review and regression analysis.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Health Sector: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Harnessing health economic evaluation for policy and practice.Communications medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence has empowered precision medicine (AI-PM) to transform healthcare. This study synthesized available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AI-PM. We systematically searched five major databases for economic evaluations of AI-PM, extracted data, and assessed risk-of-bias using the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) checklist. For cost-utility analyses, the value-for-money was quantitatively summarized, and regression analyses incorporating machine learning were conducted to explore value heterogeneity. Forty-eight economic evaluations were included, of which 31 were cost-utility analyses. Although risk-of-bias assessment indicated potential systematic optimism, AI-PM was cost-saving or cost-effective in 89% of base-case analyses, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominant to $129,174/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Interquartile ranges of incremental costs (-$259 to $28), QALY gains (0.001-0.019), and net monetary benefits (NMB; $18 to $986 at a willingness-to-pay threshold equal to one-time per-capita GDP) indicated modest health gains at minimal additional costs, and likely high value heterogeneity. Modeling choices and system-level factors were identified as essential sources of heterogeneity in estimated NMBs. Additional value assessment revealed low adaptability and underreported key value factors, leaving significant uncertainties in AI-PM adoption.
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.