ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Characterizing patients who benefit from mature medical AI models in real-world clinical applications.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical artificial intelligence (AI) is being rapidly deployed in clinical practice, yet its real-world effectiveness across diverse patient populations remains poorly characterized. We conducted a systematic review combining automated screening (fine-tuned BERT-PubMed classifiers) with manual validation to identify studies of mature medical AI models deployed in healthcare facilities worldwide. We included 171 studies at the "device-into-practice" stage with sufficient demographic and performance data, representing 209,772 patients. Patient access to these models showed marked demographic disparities: geographic concentration was extreme (Dagum-Gini coefficient 0.97, P < .001), with 95.1% of patient cohorts (studies) from high-income (62.2%) or upper-middle-income (32.9%) countries-primarily China (28.7%) and the United States (18.9%)-and no studies from low-income countries. Racial representation was dominated by White (49.1%) and Asian (42.6%) patients, and 63.8% of studies exhibited moderate-to-high sex imbalance. Across all studies, AI models outperformed human practitioners (81.7% vs. 77.8% accuracy, P < .001), but this superiority was confined to in-distribution applications (same geographic/demographic context: 82.9% vs. 77.3%, P < .001) and disappeared in out-of-distribution deployments (cross-geographic/demographic contexts: 74.1% vs. 76.3%, P = .45). In underrepresented populations, AI performance was not significantly different from that of human practitioners. Overall, mature medical AI models are deployed predominantly in economically advantaged settings, with performance advantages concentrated in well-represented demographic groups, highlighting a digital divide in access and effectiveness, and the need for demographic-specific validation.
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.