ArticlePLOS digital health2023
A scoping review of the landscape of health-related open datasets in Latin America.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical AI in the Americas: policy, validation, and representativeness.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Advocating the potential of artificial intelligence for syndrome discovery in syndromic surveillance systems: A scoping review.iScience · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence, data sharing, and privacy for retinal imaging under Brazilian Data Protection Law.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- BRSET: A Brazilian Multilabel Ophthalmological Dataset of Retina Fundus Photos.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- A multimodal framework for extraction and fusion of satellite images and public health data.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Machine learning for healthcare that matters: Reorienting from technical novelty to equitable impact.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- BRSET: A Brazilian Multilabel Ophthalmological Dataset of Retina Fundus Photos.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to revolutionize healthcare, but their successful translation into clinical practice has been limited. One crucial factor is the data used to train these algorithms, which must be representative of the population. However, most healthcare databases are derived from high-income countries, leading to non-representative models and potentially exacerbating health inequities. This review focuses on the landscape of health-related open datasets in Latin America, aiming to identify existing datasets, examine data-sharing frameworks, techniques, platforms, and formats, and identify best practices in Latin America. The review found 61 datasets from 23 countries, with the DATASUS dataset from Brazil contributing to the majority of articles. The analysis revealed a dearth of datasets created by the authors themselves, indicating a reliance on existing open datasets. The findings underscore the importance of promoting open data in Latin America. We provide recommendations for enhancing data sharing in the region.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.