ArticlePLOS digital health2026
The use of artificial intelligence in assessing fever in the returning traveller: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fever in the returning traveller is a challenging presentation that requires a wide array of clinical expertise and draws on complex medical decision-making. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have shown it can be a helpful clinical support tool in this context. This scoping review, conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines and registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BSPKX), aimed to identify the current state of artificial intelligence use in assessing fever in the returning traveller. Here we describe the three eligible studies evaluating three distinct AI approaches identified in the literature. These heterogenous studies reported promising performance on study-specific endpoints in controlled settings. Given the lack of external validation, narrow populations studied, and absence of real-world implementation or user acceptance testing, further research is needed to explore this technology in a real-world clinical setting. The limited available evidence suggests that AI may have future potential to support assessment of fever in the returning traveller; however, clinical utility, safety, and real-world effectiveness remain unestablished. Large language models represent an emerging area of interest but were not evaluated in the studies included in this review.
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.