SynthesisInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Practice: Validation, Fairness, and Regulatory Challenges: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. 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
IntroductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping healthcare, enabled by advances in computing, affordable data storage, and the widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). Machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and natural language processing (NLP) are increasingly used for disease diagnosis, risk prediction, and treatment planning.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to examine AI applications across clinical domains from 2020 to 2025, assess their diagnostic accuracy and clinical performance relative to standard practice, identify key implementation barriers including regulatory compliance, algorithmic fairness, and transparency challenges, and compare validation practices and methodological quality with earlier systematic reviews.MethodsThis systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched five databases (PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, Springer, and Semantic Scholar) for studies published from January 2020 to September 2025. We included original clinical AI studies that reported prospective validation and/or external validation.ResultsTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Publication volume peaked in 2024 (n = 7, 35.0%). DL approaches were most common (n = 12, 60.0%), with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) frequently applied to medical imaging tasks. By clinical domain, 30.0% of studies focused on radiology (n = 6), 20.0% on oncology (n = 4), and 15.0% on cardiology (n = 3). For imaging-based diagnostic models, the descriptive median performance across individual studies was 0.91 AUC (no formal meta-analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity in study designs, populations, and outcome metrics). The most frequently reported challenges were regulatory compliance (55.0%, n = 11), limited algorithmic transparency (40.0%, n = 8), data quality limitations (35.0%, n = 7), and barriers to clinical integration (30.0%, n = 6).ConclusionsAI demonstrates strong potential to improve the effectiveness, safety, and quality of healthcare. However, broader clinical adoption remains constrained by regulatory requirements, interpretability gaps, data quality issues, and workflow integration challenges, underscoring the need for stronger validation practices and more implementation-focused research.
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.