Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42729397›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

AI inclusivity and the centrality of Africa: a systematic review of representation, innovation, and governance in global artificial intelligence.

Ramadile Moletsane

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ramadile MoletsaneDepartment of Computer Sciences, Vaal University of Technology, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping global systems across education, healthcare, finance, and agriculture. Despite its transformative potential, concerns about inclusivity persist, particularly regarding the underrepresentation of African contexts in AI development. This study examines Africa's role in achieving globally inclusive AI and explores the implications of its marginalization. A qualitative systematic review design was adopted, guided by PRISMA protocols, synthesizing peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, and grey sources published between 2018 and 2025. The analysis was structured around a conceptual framework linking data diversity, development processes, and AI outcomes. Findings reveal that limited African representation in datasets, governance institutions, and innovation ecosystems contributes to algorithmic bias, reduced contextual relevance, and reinforcement of global digital inequalities. Conversely, African contributions, including context-sensitive innovation, sector-specific AI innovation, and ethical frameworks grounded in communal philosophies such as Ubuntu, demonstrate the continent's centrality to equitable AI systems. Structural barriers such as infrastructure gaps, funding constraints, and unequal global partnerships continue to limit participation. The study concludes that AI inclusivity is unattainable without meaningful African engagement in data production, model development, and governance structures. Policy recommendations emphasize capacity building, data sovereignty, equitable partnerships, and strengthened continental AI strategies. Integrating Africa as a core participant is not only a moral imperative but a technical necessity for globally representative and socially responsive AI systems.

Indexed as

AfricaAI biasartificial intelligencedigital innovationinclusivity

Identifiers

PMID42729397
PMCPMC13562029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.