Leticia Medeiros Mancini, Luiz Eduardo Vanderlei Torres, Jorge Artur P de M Coelho, Nichollas Botelho da Fonseca, Pedro Fellipe Dantas Cordeiro, Samara Silva Noronha Cavalcante, Diego Dermeval
{"title":"诊断和筛选人工智能工具在巴西资源有限的设置:系统评价。","authors":"Leticia Medeiros Mancini, Luiz Eduardo Vanderlei Torres, Jorge Artur P de M Coelho, Nichollas Botelho da Fonseca, Pedro Fellipe Dantas Cordeiro, Samara Silva Noronha Cavalcante, Diego Dermeval","doi":"10.2196/69547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform global health care, with extensive application in Brazil, particularly for diagnosis and screening.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to understand AI applications in Brazilian health care, especially focusing on the resource-constrained environments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73551,"journal":{"name":"JMIR AI","volume":"4 ","pages":"e69547"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12422524/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic and Screening AI Tools in Brazil's Resource-Limited Settings: Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Leticia Medeiros Mancini, Luiz Eduardo Vanderlei Torres, Jorge Artur P de M Coelho, Nichollas Botelho da Fonseca, Pedro Fellipe Dantas Cordeiro, Samara Silva Noronha Cavalcante, Diego Dermeval\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/69547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform global health care, with extensive application in Brazil, particularly for diagnosis and screening.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to understand AI applications in Brazilian health care, especially focusing on the resource-constrained environments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR AI\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"e69547\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12422524/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR AI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/69547\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR AI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/69547","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:人工智能(AI)具有改变全球卫生保健的潜力,在巴西得到了广泛应用,特别是在诊断和筛查方面。目的:本研究旨在进行系统综述,以了解人工智能在巴西卫生保健中的应用,特别是关注资源受限的环境。方法:进行系统评价。搜索策略包括以下数据库:PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、Web of Science、LILACS和SciELO。检索涵盖了1993年至2023年11月的论文,初步综述了714篇论文,其中25篇论文被选为最终样本。meta分析数据基于三个主要指标进行评估:受试者工作特征曲线下面积、敏感性和特异性。每个指标采用随机效应模型来解决研究的可变性。结果:人工智能工具的关键专业包括眼科和传染病,在圣保罗州进行了大量研究(13/25,52%)。所有论文都包括评估和验证工具的测试;然而,只有两个国家对不同的人群进行了二次检测。在偏倚风险方面,25篇论文中有10篇(40%)为中等风险,8篇(32%)为低风险,7篇(28%)为高风险。大多数研究是公共倡议,25个研究中有17个(68%),而25个研究中有5个(20%)是私人的。在巴西等收入有限的国家,由于财政限制和往往技术基础设施不足,必须仔细考虑在卫生保健中实施人工智能的最低技术要求。在被审查的论文中,25篇中有19篇(76%)使用了电脑,25篇中有18篇(72%)需要Windows操作系统。使用最多的人工智能算法是机器学习(11/25,44%)。联合敏感性为0.8113,联合特异性为0.7417,受试者工作特征曲线下的联合面积为0.8308,均为p。结论:诊断和筛查工具的使用相对平衡,在巴西各地的不同背景下广泛应用。对二次测试的需求突出了未来研究的机会。
Diagnostic and Screening AI Tools in Brazil's Resource-Limited Settings: Systematic Review.
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.