ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026
A conceptual framework for measuring AI health equity.
Article in International journal for equity in 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in health systems globally and has the potential to improve efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, and decision support. However, its benefits remain unevenly distributed, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Models developed using datasets from specific populations may perform poorly in other settings, reinforcing structural inequities rather than correcting them.
objectiveThis viewpoint proposes a composite framework, the AI in Healthcare Equity Index (AIHEI), to support measurable assessment of equity in health AI systems. FRAMEWORK: The AIHEI is designed to assess equity across five domains: data representation, algorithmic fairness, transparency and explainability, governance and oversight, and community impact and benefit sharing. By generating a standardised score, the index could enable comparisons across technologies, incentivise improvement, and support regulation, procurement, publication, and funding decisions. IMPLICATIONS: Pilots across diverse health domains and geographic settings are needed to assess feasibility, refine domain weighting, and evaluate reliability, reproducibility, and validity. Important challenges include contextual definitions of fairness, data sovereignty, post-deployment monitoring, and the risk of metric gaming.
conclusionsQuantifying equity in health AI is essential to ensure that AI does not create, widen, or exacerbate existing disparities by neglecting underserved populations. A common, objective measure of AI-related health equity can help move the field from ethical aspiration toward measurable accountability, monitoring, and enforcement.
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.