ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Artificial intelligence for precision malaria control: transforming surveillance, prediction, and intervention strategies.
Review in Frontiers in 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malaria elimination has stalled globally despite decades of investment, with traditional surveillance constrained by retrospective reporting and limited capacity to integrate high-dimensional, non-linear data. In this perspective, we argue that artificial intelligence (AI) encompassing machine learning and deep learning can help shift malaria control from reactive reporting toward predictive, precision public health, while cautioning that it is one enabler among many rather than a stand-alone solution. We examine AI across three interconnected domains: surveillance (understood broadly as case detection, entomological and intervention-coverage monitoring, and the data-to-response loop), prediction (outbreak forecasting and spatial risk mapping), and control (resource stratification and intervention optimisation). Reported AI diagnostics can exceed 90% accuracy, and forecasting models offer useful lead times by integrating climatic, entomological and epidemiological data. However, realising this potential depends on resolving data-quality limitations, algorithmic bias, weak digital infrastructure, and absent governance frameworks, and on locally adapted rather than uniformly generalised models. We contend that demand-driven integration into national strategies, local capacity building, and prospective trials not algorithmic novelty will determine whether AI meaningfully accelerates progress toward elimination.
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.