ReviewJMIR AI2025
Diagnostic and Screening AI Tools in Brazil's Resource-Limited Settings: Systematic Review.
Review in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform global health care, with extensive application in Brazil, particularly for diagnosis and screening. Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to understand AI applications in Brazilian health care, especially focusing on the resource-constrained environments. Methods: A systematic review was performed. The search strategy included the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, and SciELO. The search covered papers from 1993 to November 2023, with an initial overview of 714 papers found, of which 25 papers were selected for the final sample. Meta-analysis data were evaluated based on three main metrics: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity. A random effects model was applied for each metric to address study variability. Results: Key specialties for AI tools include ophthalmology and infectious disease, with a significant concentration of studies conducted in São Paulo state (13/25, 52%). All papers included testing to evaluate and validate the tools; however, only two conducted secondary testing with a different population. In terms of risk of bias, 10 of 25 (40%) papers had medium risk, 8 of 25 (32%) had low risk, and 7 of 25 (28%) had high risk. Most studies were public initiatives, totaling 17 of 25 (68%), while 5 of 25 (20%) were private. In limited-income countries like Brazil, minimum technological requirements for implementing AI in health care must be carefully considered due to financial limitations and often insufficient technological infrastructure. Of the papers reviewed, 19 of 25 (76%) used computers, and 18 of 25 (72%) required the Windows operating system. The most used AI algorithm was machine learning (11/25, 44%). The combined sensitivity was 0.8113, the combined specificity was 0.7417, and the combined area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8308, all with P<.001. Conclusions: There is a relative balance in the use of both diagnostic and screening tools, with widespread application across Brazil in varied contexts. The need for secondary testing highlights opportunities for future research.
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.