ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Artificial intelligence for research capacity strengthening: Two reviews and a pathway to shift power in global health.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant disparities persist in how researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) participate in agenda-setting and knowledge production. Rapid advancement in artificial intelligence (AI) might contribute to improving research capacity in LMICs. This review aimed to synthesize evidence on AI for research capacity strengthening in LMICs towards shifting power in global health. We conducted a systematic review of current evidence on AI for research capacity strengthening and a review of reviews on the decolonization of knowledge generation, searching PubMed, Scopus, and SciELO for relevant literature. Articles were included in the systematic review if they included primary data on using AI for research purposes. Reviews were included in the review of reviews if they addressed issues related to knowledge generation. Each review was assigned two independent reviewers for title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction. A narrative synthesis of the extracted data from both reviews was then performed. Given study designs for the inclusion-eligible papers, we did not conduct a formal risk-of-bias assessment. The systematic review identified 305 papers, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. The review of reviews identified 14 papers, of which 8 were included in the final analysis. Key themes identified from the systematic review include data analysis and research productivity, literature reviews and knowledge management, training and capacity strengthening, expanding access to methodological support, and writing support. The review of reviews found a recurrent theme in the need to address power imbalances rooted in colonial legacies. These reviews demonstrate the potential for AI to transform research capacity in LMICs by democratizing access to advanced analytical tools, providing methodological support, and helping overcome resource limitations that have historically restricted research opportunities. However, equitable governance and local leadership are crucial to prevent AI from widening the gap between LMICs and HICs, perpetuating the power asymmetries that current efforts seek to dismantle.
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.