Back

Exploring the potential benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence for research funding organisations: a scoping review

Blatch-Jones, A. J.; Church, H.; Crane, K.

2024-09-26 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2024.09.26.24314280
Show abstract

BackgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) is at the forefront of todays technological revolution, enhancing efficiency in many organisations and sectors. However, in some research environments, its adoption is tempered by the risks AI poses to data protection, ethics, and research integrity. For research funding organisations (RFOs), although there is interest in the application of AI to boost productivity, there is also uncertainty around AIs utility and its safe integration into organisational systems and processes. The scoping review explored: What does the evidence say about the current and emerging use of AI?; What are the potential benefits of AI for RFOs? and What are the considerations and risks of AI for RFOs? MethodsA scoping review was undertaken with no study, language, or field limits. Due to the rapidly evolving AI field, searches were limited to the last three years (2022-2024). Four databases were searched for academic and grey literature in February 2024 (including 13 funding and professional research organisation websites). A classification framework captured the utility and potential, and considerations and risks of AI for RFOs. Results122 eligible articles revealed that current and emerging AI solutions could potentially benefit RFOs by enhancing data processes, administration, research insights, operational management, and strategic decision-making. These solutions ranged from AI algorithms to data management platforms, frameworks, guidelines, and business models. However, several considerations and risks need to be addressed before RFOs can successfully integrate AI (e.g., improving data quality, regulating ethical use, data science training). ConclusionWhile RFOs could potentially benefit from a breadth of AI-driven solutions to improve operations, decision-making and data management, there is a need to assess organisational AI readiness. Although technological advances could be the solution there is a need to address AI accountability, governance and ethics, address societal impact, and the risks to the research funding landscape.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 25%
16.8%
3
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
based on 13 papers
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 5%
4.9%
5
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 22%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 3%
3.1%
7
F1000Research
based on 28 papers
Top 0.3%
3.1%
8
Royal Society Open Science
based on 49 papers
Top 1%
3.1%
9
JMIRx Med
based on 29 papers
Top 1%
2.5%
10
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 2%
2.5%
11
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
2.5%
12
PLOS Global Public Health
based on 287 papers
Top 15%
1.7%
13
Healthcare
based on 14 papers
Top 0.8%
1.7%
14
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 10%
1.4%
15
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 74%
1.4%
16
Trials
based on 24 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
based on 16 papers
Top 3%
0.9%
18
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
19
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 7%
0.7%
20
JAMA
based on 17 papers
Top 1%
0.7%
21
Emergency Medicine Journal
based on 20 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Journal of Public Health
based on 23 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
24
JMIR Research Protocols
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
25
Medicine
based on 29 papers
Top 8%
0.7%
26
BMC Public Health
based on 148 papers
Top 23%
0.7%
27
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 6%
0.7%