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