ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2025
Machine learning in healthcare citizen science: A scoping review.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis scoping review aims to clarify the definition and trajectory of citizen-led scientific research (so-called citizen science) within the healthcare domain, examine the degree of integration of machine learning (ML) and the participation levels of citizen scientists in health-related projects. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn January and September 2024 we conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost platform for peer-reviewed publications that combine citizen science and machine learning (ML) in healthcare. Articles were excluded if citizens were merely passive data providers or if only professional scientists were involved.
resultsOut of an initial 1,395 screened, 56 articles spanning from 2013 to 2024 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of research projects were conducted in the U.S. (n = 20, 35.7 %), followed by Germany (n = 6, 10.7 %), with Spain, Canada, and the UK each contributing three studies (5.4 %). Data collection was the primary form of citizen scientist involvement (n = 29, 51.8 %), which included capturing images, sharing data online, and mailing samples. Data annotation was the next most common activity (n = 15, 26.8 %), followed by participation in ML model challenges (n = 8, 14.3 %) and decision-making contributions (n = 3, 5.4 %). Mosquitoes (n = 10, 34.5 %) and air pollution samples (n = 7, 24.2 %) were the main data objects collected by citizens for ML analysis. Classification tasks were the most prevalent ML method (n = 30, 52.6 %), with Convolutional Neural Networks being the most frequently used algorithm (n = 13, 20 %). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsCitizen science in healthcare is currently an American and European construct with growing expansion in Asia. Citizens are contributing data, and labeling data for ML methods, but only infrequently analyzing or leading studies. Projects that use "crowd-sourced" data and "citizen science" should be differentiated depending on the degree of involvement of citizens.
Indexed as
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.