Scholarlink

<p>Medical artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly, yet a comprehensive quantitative overview of its clinical evaluation landscape remains lacking. We conducted a scoping review of 218 systematic reviews published between September 2023 and September 2024, from which 4667 primary studies were identified and classified by research stage, geography, specialty, and study design. Most studies were preclinical (88.2%, 4114/4667), while only 2.4% (113/4667) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Research was highly geographically concentrated: the top 10 contributing countries accounted for 75.5% of total country contributions, of which the United States and China contributed 47.5%. Among all primary studies, neoplasms (32.5%, 1518/4667) and musculoskeletal disorders (14.1%, 656/4667) were the most common, whereas digestive (38.1%, 43/113) and circulatory diseases (12.4%, 14/113) accounted for most RCTs. Among RCTs, 67.3% (76/113) were single-center, and 71.7% (81/113) did not report adherence to any reporting guideline. Overall, 82.3% (93/113) of RCTs reported favorable outcomes, although methodological concerns were common, particularly in allocation concealment and blinding. These findings indicate that medical AI research remains heavily skewed toward early-stage development, with limited high-quality clinical evidence. Strengthening trial design, multicenter collaboration, and reporting transparency will be critical to support the safe and equitable integration of AI into clinical practice.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A quantitative analysis of global AI medical studies: gaps in randomized controlled trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月30日

查看全文
  • Qiankun Wang,
  • Yao Yang,
  • Lingqing Qiu,
  • Yeting Xu,
  • Rongjing Sun,
  • Peng Xue,
  • Youlin Qiao

摘要

Medical artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly, yet a comprehensive quantitative overview of its clinical evaluation landscape remains lacking. We conducted a scoping review of 218 systematic reviews published between September 2023 and September 2024, from which 4667 primary studies were identified and classified by research stage, geography, specialty, and study design. Most studies were preclinical (88.2%, 4114/4667), while only 2.4% (113/4667) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Research was highly geographically concentrated: the top 10 contributing countries accounted for 75.5% of total country contributions, of which the United States and China contributed 47.5%. Among all primary studies, neoplasms (32.5%, 1518/4667) and musculoskeletal disorders (14.1%, 656/4667) were the most common, whereas digestive (38.1%, 43/113) and circulatory diseases (12.4%, 14/113) accounted for most RCTs. Among RCTs, 67.3% (76/113) were single-center, and 71.7% (81/113) did not report adherence to any reporting guideline. Overall, 82.3% (93/113) of RCTs reported favorable outcomes, although methodological concerns were common, particularly in allocation concealment and blinding. These findings indicate that medical AI research remains heavily skewed toward early-stage development, with limited high-quality clinical evidence. Strengthening trial design, multicenter collaboration, and reporting transparency will be critical to support the safe and equitable integration of AI into clinical practice.