Economic Evaluations and Equity in the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Imaging Exams for Medical Diagnosis in People With Skin, Neurological, and Pulmonary Diseases: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional health care systems face long-standing challenges, including patient diversity, geographical disparities, and financial constraints. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care offers solutions to these challenges. AI, a multidisciplinary field, enhances clinical decision-making. However, imbalanced AI models may enhance health disparities. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to investigate the economic performance and equity impact of AI in diagnostic imaging for skin, neurological, and pulmonary diseases. The research question is "To what extent does the use of AI in imaging exams for diagnosing skin, neurological, and pulmonary diseases result in improved economic outcomes, and does it promote equity in health care systems?" METHODS: The study is a systematic review of economic and equity evaluations following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines. Eligibility criteria include articles reporting on economic evaluations or equity considerations related to AI-based diagnostic imaging for specified diseases. Data will be collected from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and reference lists. Data quality and transferability will be assessed according to CHEC (Consensus on Health Economic Criteria), EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project), and Welte checklists. RESULTS: This systematic review began in March 2023. The literature search identified 9,526 publications and, after full-text screening, 9 publications were included in the study. We plan to submit a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal once it is finalized, with an expected completion date in January 2024. CONCLUSIONS: AI in diagnostic imaging offers potential benefits but also raises concerns about equity and economic impact. Bias in algorithms and disparities in access may hinder equitable outcomes. Evaluating the economic viability of AI applications is essential for resource allocation and affordability. Policy makers and health care stakeholders can benefit from this review's insights to make informed decisions. Limitations, including study variability and publication bias, will be considered in the analysis. This systematic review will provide valuable insights into the economic and equity implications of AI in diagnostic imaging. It aims to inform evidence-based decision-making and contribute to more efficient and equitable health care systems. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48544.
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 | 0.079 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.007 |
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".