Artificial Intelligence in Health Promotion and Disease Reduction: Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic diseases represent a significant global burden of mortality, exacerbated by behavioral risk factors. Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed health promotion and disease reduction through improved early detection, encouraging healthy lifestyle modifications, and mitigating the economic strain on health systems. Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate how AI contributes to health promotion and disease reduction among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Methods: We conducted a rapid review of the literature to identify the latest evidence on how AI is used in health promotion and disease reduction. We applied comprehensive search strategies formulated for MEDLINE (OVID) and CINAHL to locate studies published between 2019 and 2024. A pair of reviewers independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to screen the titles and abstracts, assess the full texts, and extract the data. We synthesized extracted data from the study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and intervention purpose using structured narrative summaries of main themes, giving a portrait of the current scope of available AI initiatives used in promoting healthy activities and preventing disease. Results: We included 22 studies in this review (out of 3442 publications screened), most of which were conducted in the United States (10/22, 45%) and focused on health promotion by targeting lifestyle dimensions, such as dietary behavior (10/22, 45%), smoking cessation (6/22, 27%), physical activity (4/22, 18%), and mental health (3/22, 14%). Three studies targeted disease reduction related to metabolic health (eg, obesity, diabetes, hypertension). Most AI initiatives were AI-powered mobile apps. Overall, positive results were reported for process outcomes (eg, acceptability, engagement), cognitive and behavioral outcomes (eg, confidence, step count), and health outcomes (eg, glycemia, blood pressure). We categorized the challenges, benefits, and suggestions identified in the studies using a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis to inform future developments. Key recommendations include conducting further investigations, taking into account the needs of end users, improving the technical aspect of the technology, and allocating resources. Conclusions: These findings offer critical insights into the effective implementation of AI for health promotion and disease prevention, potentially guiding policymakers and health care practitioners in optimizing the use of AI technologies in supporting health promotion and disease reduction.
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 | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".