ArticleRheumatology international2026
Artificial intelligence in rheumatology: a cross-sectional Scopus-based analysis.
Article in Rheumatology international, 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
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in clinical medicine. Rheumatology is well-suited to AI applications due to diagnostic complexity of rheumatic diseases, variable disease presentations, and multisystem involvement. This cross-sectional study examines global AI research in rheumatology through bibliometric analysis of Scopus data. The Scopus database was searched on May 5, 2026, using the terms "artificial intelligence" AND "rheum*" in the title, abstract, and keyword fields. No temporal restrictions were applied, and all English documents were analyzed. Bibliometric data, including publication year, country, institution, author, journal, and keywords, were extracted. Retracted articles were identified using Scopus tags and were manually verified through related journal editorial notices. Disease-specific publication counts were determined through independent searches for rheumatic diseases. Survey-based studies were identified through manual review. Linear regression analysis was conducted to assess temporal trends. A total of 1,057 publications were identified. Annual output remained below 10 until 2018, then rose sharply to a peak of 282 in 2025. Linear regression confirmed a significant upward trend (p < 0.001). The United States produced the most publications (n = 249), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 141) and India (n = 138). Harvard Medical School was the leading institution (n = 33), and Knitza, J., was the most prolific author (n = 17). Rheumatology International published the most articles (n = 27). Osteoarthritis (n = 1,017) and rheumatoid arthritis (n = 646) dominated the field, while systemic vasculitis (n = 40), Behçet disease (n = 29), and familial Mediterranean fever (n = 16) were underrepresented. Eleven survey-based studies were identified, mostly published between 2024 and 2025. Two articles were retracted due to peer review irregularities. AI research in rheumatology has increased significantly, with research outputs stemming from a limited number of countries, institutions, and disease categories. Osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are the most frequently explored diseases in the field. The increasing number of survey-based studies indicates heightened attention to clinician and patient perspectives. Future research should focus on expanding international collaboration, addressing gaps in AI research on underrepresented diseases, and strengthening ethical and methodological standards to facilitate broader AI adoption in rheumatology.
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.