Leapfrogging cancer diagnostics with AI: a mixed-methods assessment of implementation determinants in low- and middle-income countries
Schoenpflug, L. A.; van den Berg, N. J.; Chhut, S. V.; Leung, E. Y. L.; Looi, L.-M.; Lukande, R.; Meja, S. J.; Parra-Medina, R.; Pathak, T. B.; Pyuza, J. J.; Razack, R.; Tawiah, A.; Waithaka, M. W.; Zoroquiain, P.; Barkey Wolf, J.; Jundt, G.; Lafarge, M. W.; Bosse, T.; Koelzer, V. H.; Horeweg, N.
Show abstract
Introduction Cancer incidence is rising rapidly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where diagnostic pathology capacity is constrained. AI applied to routine histopathology could strengthen diagnostic capacity and offer leapfrogging potential by embedding AI into diagnostic systems as they are built up. However, without empirically identifying implementation determinants in LMIC cancer-diagnostic settings, AI solutions risk being poorly aligned with local constraints, limiting impact or exacerbating existing disparities. Methods We conducted an exploratory mixed-methods pilot study across three phases: 1) a structured survey characterising the diagnostic and technical landscape and AI priorities; 2) focus group discussions (FGDs) to inductively identify implementation determinants and 3) a second survey quantifying FGD-derived themes. Twelve physicians were purposively recruited (10 from LMIC, 2 from high-income countries for reference) and findings integrated through narrative triangulation. Results There was substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic and AI infrastructure that did not track consistently with country income classification. H&E staining was universally available, immunohistochemistry capacity was rudimentary at 7 of 10 sites and molecular testing absent or minimal at 6 of 10 sites. Whole-slide-imaging scanners were available at 8 of 10 sites, while graphical processing units, required for efficient AI inference, were available at only 4 of 10 sites. The participants would prioritise use of AI for cancer screening, cancer diagnosis, and biomarker prediction from H&E slides. Six implementation determinants were identified: AI literacy, governance frameworks, funding, evidence generation, clinical deployment, and collaboration. Financial constraints emerged as the dominant barrier across all determinants, and collaboration as an important enabling mechanism. Conclusion AI implementation readiness in LMIC cancer-diagnostic settings is highly heterogeneous and cannot be inferred from income classification, underscoring the need for institution-level assessment. Realising the leapfrogging potential of AI in this context requires coordinated progress across all determinants, with sustainable financing, and collaboration enabling the remaining determinants.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Health facility preparedness for early detection of symptomatic cancer in Southern Africa: a multi-centre cross-sectional study 92%
- Uptake and factors associated with cervical cancer screening among women aged 18-49 years at a public hospital in Coastal Kenya 90%
- Paediatric Palliative Care following Hospital discharge: Prevalence and factors associated with non-continuity of palliative care for children with cancer in Busoga sub-region-eastern Uganda; A mixed methods study 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Challenges and facilitators in pathways to cancer diagnosis in Southern Africa: A qualitative study 91%
- Surgical candidacy and treatment uptake among women with cervical cancer at public referral hospitals in Kampala, Uganda 90%
- Development and validation of multivariable machine learning algorithms to predict risk of cancer in symptomatic patients referred urgently from primary care 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Projected Cancer Burden, Challenges, and Barriers to Cancer Prevention and Control Activities in the State of Telangana 89%
- A Core Outcome Set to evaluate the impact of prognostication in people living with advanced cancer: an international consensus study 89%
- From many voices, one question: Community co-design of a population-based qualitative cancer research study 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Combining faecal immunochemical testing with blood test results to identify patients with symptoms at risk of colorectal cancer: a consecutive cohort of 16,604 patients tested in primary care 87%
- Coding Long COVID: Characterizing a new disease through an ICD-10 lens 86%
- Projected geographic disparities in healthcare worker absenteeism from COVID-19 school closures and the economic feasibility of child care subsidies: a simulation study 85%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cancer risk algorithms in primary care: can they improve risk estimates and referral decisions? 90%
- Systematic Review of Large Language Models for Patient Care: Current Applications and Challenges 87%
- Achieving Inclusive Healthcare through Integrating Education and Research with AI and Personalized Curricula 87%
"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.