Implications of Big Data Analytics, AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning in the Health Care System of Bangladesh: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rapid advancement of digital technologies, particularly in big data analytics (BDA), artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL), is reshaping the global health care system, including in Bangladesh. The increased adoption of these technologies in health care delivery within Bangladesh has sparked their integration into health care and public health research, resulting in a noticeable surge in related studies. However, a critical gap exists, as there is a lack of comprehensive evidence regarding the research landscape; regulatory challenges; use cases; and the application and adoption of BDA, AI, ML, and DL in the health care system of Bangladesh. This gap impedes the attainment of optimal results. As Bangladesh is a leading implementer of digital technologies, bridging this gap is urgent for the effective use of these advancing technologies. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to collate (1) the existing research in Bangladesh's health care system, using the aforementioned technologies and synthesizing their findings, and (2) the limitations faced by researchers in integrating the aforementioned technologies into health care research. METHODS: MEDLINE (via PubMed), IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched to identify published research articles between January 1, 2000, and September 10, 2023, meeting the following inclusion criteria: (1) any study using any of the BDA, AI, ML, and DL technologies and health care and public health datasets for predicting health issues and forecasting any kind of outbreak; (2) studies primarily focusing on health care and public health issues in Bangladesh; and (3) original research articles published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings written in English. RESULTS: With the initial search, we identified 1653 studies. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria and full-text review, 4.66% (77/1653) of the articles were finally included in this review. There was a substantial increase in studies over the last 5 years (2017-2023). Among the 77 studies, the majority (n=65, 84%) used ML models. A smaller proportion of studies incorporated AI (4/77, 5%), DL (7/77, 9%), and BDA (1/77, 1%) technologies. Among the reviewed articles, 52% (40/77) relied on primary data, while the remaining 48% (37/77) used secondary data. The primary research areas of focus were infectious diseases (15/77, 19%), noncommunicable diseases (23/77, 30%), child health (11/77, 14%), and mental health (9/77, 12%). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights remarkable progress in leveraging BDA, AI, ML, and DL within Bangladesh's health care system. The observed surge in studies over the last 5 years underscores the increasing significance of AI and related technologies in health care research. Notably, most (65/77, 84%) studies focused on ML models, unveiling opportunities for advancements in predictive modeling. This review encapsulates the current state of technological integration and propels us into a promising era for the future of digital Bangladesh.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".