ReviewBMJ digital health & AI2026
Academia and industry in the age of artificial intelligence: a narrative review.
Review in BMJ digital health & AI, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have fuelled a boom phase and promise to revolutionise many domains, including the traditional activities of academic medical centres (AMCs): biomedical research, education and healthcare services. Progress in AI is driven by three factors: (1) faster and cheaper processors (compute), (2) increasingly efficient training algorithms and neural network architectures and (3) an increase in electronically readable data. Outside of healthcare, industry investment dwarfs AI investment by governments. The largest computer clusters and datasets are now managed by industry. Similarly, most PhDs specialising in AI research are employed by industry. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the largest and best-performing models are now developed by industry. Despite the industry lead in the general domain, we argue that AMCs have a key advantage in healthcare; they steward high-value biomedical data, a key driver of AI progress. Data are a strategic asset for AMCs. However, to capitalise on that asset, AMCs must invest in data ecosystems that improve data quality and utility, including the processes that produce data as well as data management. AMCs must also implement policies and procedures that lower the barriers to data use and reuse. With burgeoning interest in AI, AMCs should take on the role of careful, yet efficient, stewards of healthcare data to maximise its potential, while acting in the public's best interests.
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.