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.
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 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 96%
- Designing a computer-assisted diagnosis system for cardiomegaly detection and radiology report generation 91%
- A Comparison of CXR-CAD Software to Radiologists in Identifying COVID-19 in Individuals Evaluated for Sars CoV 2 Infection in Malawi and Zambia 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 94%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 93%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Network Graph Representation of COVID-19 Scientific Publications to Aid Knowledge Discovery 90%
- Cracking the Code: A Scoping Review to Unite Disciplines in Tackling Legal Issues in Health Artificial Intelligence 90%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research 91%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 91%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.