Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Bibliometric Study of Contributions from Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning has seen enormous growth in the last decade, with healthcare being a prime application for advanced diagnostics and improved patient care. The application of machine learning for healthcare is particularly pertinent in Africa, where many countries are resource-scarce. However, it is unclear how much research on this topic is arising from African institutes themselves, which is a crucial aspect for applications of machine learning to unique contexts and challenges on the continent. Here, we conduct a bibliometric study of African contributions to research publications related to machine learning for healthcare, as indexed in Scopus, between 1993 and 2022. We identified 3,772 research outputs, with most of these published since 2020. North African countries currently lead the way with 64.5% of publications for the reported period, yet Sub-Saharan Africa is rapidly increasing its output. We found that international support in the form of funding and collaborations is correlated with research output generally for the continent, with local support garnering less attention. Understanding African research contributions to machine learning for healthcare is a crucial first step in surveying the broader academic landscape, forming stronger research communities, and providing advanced and contextually aware biomedical access to Africa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.117 | 0.239 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".