Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42905880›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026

Capacity, Collaboration, and Thematic Structure in Health AI Research Over the Past Decade in the Gulf Cooperation Council: Scientometric Analysis.

Ahmed Alqheedan, Saleh Alzughaibi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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

2 authors.

Ahmed AlqheedanDepartment of Health Informatics, College of Health Sciences, Saudi Electronic University, Abi Bakr As Siddiq Rd, Ar Rabi, Riyadh, Riyadh Region, 13316, Saudi Arabia, 966 115000333.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1282-7086
Saleh AlzughaibiDepartment of Health Informatics, College of Health Sciences, Saudi Electronic University, Abi Bakr As Siddiq Rd, Ar Rabi, Riyadh, Riyadh Region, 13316, Saudi Arabia, 966 115000333.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9952-6181

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health AI investment is accelerating across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), yet the region's health AI research output has never been systematically quantified. National research capacity is a structural precondition for the safe local development and governance of clinical AI, but no scientometric baseline exists for the 6 GCC states. Objective: We characterized the volume, growth, collaboration structure, and thematic composition of GCC health AI research and examined whether national output aligns with an existing measure of informatics readiness. Methods: We conducted an ecological scientometric analysis of all health AI publications affiliated with the 6 GCC states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) for 2011 to 2024 (the last complete indexing year at extraction) using the open bibliographic database OpenAlex. A publication was eligible if it included both an AI family and a health or medicine family concept above a 0.30 relevance threshold. Bibliometric indicators (output, compound annual growth, per capita intensity, citation impact, international and intraregional collaboration, and institutional concentration) were computed; coauthorship and concept co-occurrence networks were constructed and clustered by modularity. National health AI intensity was correlated (Spearman) with the Health Informatics Readiness Index (HIRI) and Global Digital Health Monitor (GDHM) phase. Results: Of 112,480 GCC-affiliated AI publications, 3512 met the health AI definition. Regional output rose from 18 (2011) to 904 (2024) publications per year (compound annual growth=35.2%), with 86.4% (3034/3512) published from 2020 onward and a sharp inflection from 2019 to 2021. Saudi Arabia contributed 59.6% (2094/3512) of the output by itself and 81.5% (2862/3512) together with the United Arab Emirates; Qatar led on a per capita basis (approximately 136 publications per million population). International collaboration (2551/3512, 72.6% of the papers) predominated over intra-GCC collaboration (164/3327, 4.9%), with the latter being inversely related to national output. The principal external partners were India, the United States, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and Egypt. Output spanned 3186 institutions; concentration ranged from 89.4% (328/367) of a country's output among the top 3 institutions for Qatar to 34.4% (721/2094) for Saudi Arabia. Concept co-occurrence was classified into 4 themes-classic machine learning clinical prediction, medical imaging and oncology, COVID-19 response, and diabetic eye disease. Health AI intensity (ρ=+0.60) and, more strongly, absolute output (ρ=+0.89) correlated with the HIRI; absolute output was also correlated with GDHM phase (ρ=+0.83). Conclusions: GCC health AI research has grown rapidly but unevenly, is heavily dependent on international collaboration, is concentrated in medical imaging, and-outside Saudi Arabia-remains anchored in single national institutions. Informatics readiness was associated with both the intensity and the volume of national research output. The findings establish a reproducible baseline for monitoring regional health AI research capacity as GCC health systems move toward clinical AI deployment.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBibliometricsBiomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorResearchHumansInternational CooperationMiddle EastOmanQatarSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab EmiratesAIartificial intelligencebibliometricsdigital healthGulf Cooperation Councilhealth informaticsOpenAlexresearch capacityscientometrics

Identifiers

PMID42905880
PMCPMC13686240

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.