Back

Who is leading medical AI? A systematic review and scientometric analysis of chest x-ray research

Vasquez-Venegas, C.; Chewcharat, A.; Kimera, R.; Kurtzman, N.; Leite, M.; Woite, N. L.; Muppidi, I. J.; Muppidi, R. J.; Liu, X.; Ong, E. P.; Pal, R.; Myers, C.; Salzman, S.; Patscheider, J. S.; John, T. R.; Rogers, M.; Samuel, M.; Santana-Guerrero, J. L.; Yaacob, S.; Gameiro, R. R.; Celi, L. A.

2026-04-07 health informatics
10.64898/2026.04.02.26349884 medRxiv
Show abstract

Computer vision models for chest X-ray interpretation hold significant promise for global healthcare, but their clinical value depends on equitable development across diverse populations. We conducted a scientometric analysis to examine authorship patterns, geographic distribution, and dataset origins to assess potential disparities that could affect clinical applicability. We systematically reviewed literature on computer vision applications for chest X-rays published between 2017-2025 across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase and SciELO databases. Using Dimensions API and manual extraction, we analyzed 928 eligible studies, examining first and senior author affiliations, institutional contributions, dataset provenance, and collaboration patterns across different income classifications based on World Bank categories. High-income countries dominated research leadership, representing 55.6% of first authors and 59.7% of senior authors; no first authors were affiliated with low-income countries. China (16.93%) and the United States (16.72%) led in first authorship positions. Most datasets (73.6%) originated from high-income settings, with the United States being the largest contributor (40.45%). Private datasets were most frequently used (20.52%). Cross-income collaborations were rare, with only 3.9% of publications involving partnerships between high-income and lower-middle-income countries. Findings reveal substantial disparities in who shapes computer vision research on chest X-rays and which populations are represented in training data. These imbalances risk developing AI systems that perform inconsistently across diverse healthcare settings, potentially exacerbating healthcare inequities. Addressing these disparities requires coordinated efforts to develop globally representative datasets, establish equitable international collaborations, and implement policies that promote inclusive research practices.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
51.7%
50% of probability mass above
2
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
3
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.6%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.9%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.6%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.4%
8
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
10
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
12
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
13
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
14
Patterns
70 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
15
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
16
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
17
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
18
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
19
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%