To analyse the landscape of active US National Institutes of Health (NIH) artificial intelligence (AI) health research grants, with emphasis on studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to characterise use cases, health challenges addressed and gaps relevant to the ethical and responsible application of AI-enabled health science.

Descriptive portfolio analysis of NIH-funded AI health research grants.

NIH research portfolio analysis, with a focus on global health studies in LMICs.

None. Data are derived from active NIH-funded grants involving AI applications in health research, as of 31 January 2025.

Not applicable (portfolio analysis).

Primary measures included the proportion and funding of AI health research grants focused on LMICs and their thematic use cases. Secondary measures compared LMIC-focused and high-income country (HIC)-focused grants by research focus and health area and identified gaps relevant to ethical and responsible AI use in global health.

Of 1850 active NIH AI health research grants, 97 (5.2%) focused on LMICs, representing US$40.2 million (2.4%) of the total US$1.66 billion portfolio. compared with HICs, LMIC-based studies emphasised diagnostics and treatment (72.2% vs 66.8%), health system optimisation (18.6% vs 15.6%), disease surveillance and outbreak response (14.4% vs 8.8%), and telemedicine and remote care (7.2% vs 4.4%). HIC-based grants more frequently addressed public health education (10.4% vs 8.2%) and ethics and data governance (12.8% vs 7.2%). All settings emphasised data science training and capacity strengthening, as well as basic research and early-stage AI-augmented tools. LMIC-based studies most often targeted non-communicable diseases (39%), communicable diseases (30%) and health system strengthening (24%). 31 awards were made directly to LMIC-based principal investigators (1.7% of the portfolio), most commonly in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda.

NIH investment in peer-reviewed AI-enabled health research is expanding globally. LMIC-focused studies prioritise areas aligned with pressing global health needs, including outbreak detection, disease surveillance, diagnostics and treatment, health system optimisation and remote care. Greater attention to ethics, data governance and public health communication, alongside support for digital infrastructure and meaningful collaboration, may help strengthen the relevance and sustainability of AI-enabled research for population health.

Recent research indicates that around 8% of older people living in prison have signs or symptoms of dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), yet the care they receive is not equivalent to care in the community and this means their needs may not be met. We co-developed an intervention specifically for older people living in prison with dementia/MCI (Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in prison care pathway and training package–DECISION). To date, this has not been implemented or evaluated. This paper presents our protocol for a study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of DECISION.

This is a non-randomised, realist-informed mixed-methods feasibility study with integrated process evaluation, which will take place in two prisons in England. The intervention was codeveloped with experts with lived experience. Participants will include older people living in prison, staff working in prison and peer supporters. We will assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention (eg, numbers eligible; rates of recruitment and retention), and the evaluation design (eg, completion rates of standardised outcome measures). Methods will include semistructured, realist-informed interviews; an audit to assess implementation fidelity; focused ethnography; training questionnaires; and collection of resource use data. We will refine the DECISION programme theory using realist-informed methods to examine and refine how contexts and mechanisms interact to produce the intervention’s outcomes.

This study received a favourable ethical opinion from the Wales REC 3 Research Ethics Committee in January 2025 (reference number 24/WA/0323). HMPPS National Research Committee approval was also granted in January 2025 (reference number 2024-1451). Findings will be disseminated through a range of avenues, including stakeholder engagement events, open-access papers, conference presentations, evidence briefings for commissioners, providers and practitioners, and newsletters for service users.

To establish, through patient and public involvement (PPI) events, the exercise barriers, facilitators and preferences of people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Qualitative ‘best fit’ framework analysis was used to analyse field notes and transcripts collected during three patient and public involvement meetings and three workshops. The best fit framework was based on the COM-B model of behaviour change, which has identified that Capability, Opportunity and Motivation components are essential for Behaviour change. The Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research checklist was used to structure the report.

Setting and participants: Community dwelling older adults with HFpEF.

24 people with HFpEF (n=16 female, 66%), 2 spouses and 2 people with chronic conditions participated in the PPI meetings and workshops. Multiple exercise-related capability (negative symptoms, functional ability, resilience and self-efficacy and knowledge and skill); opportunity (appealing components, optimal conditions, adequate support); and motivation factors (well-being, physical gains, goal achievement, sense of enjoyment) were identified as essential to facilitating change in exercise behaviours in people with HFpEF.

This study provides insight into capability, opportunity and motivation conditions that people with HFpEF feel are necessary to enable them to engage in exercise-related behaviour change. This work extends previous post hoc work by moving beyond identification of broad influencers that may enable or impede exercise intervention engagement, to identify intervention conditions necessary to affect change.

Chagas disease (CD) is one of the most neglected diseases in the world. In Latin America, CD is endemic in 21 countries, with an estimated 70 million people at risk of infection. Current treatments are limited to two nitroheterocyclic compounds: nifurtimox and benznidazole (BZN). Each has significant limitations, including long duration and safety concerns. However, data from recently completed studies suggest that reduced-duration regimens may be equally effective while enhancing safety.

NuestroBen is a phase III, randomised, multicentre clinical trial designed to assess whether shorter (2- and 4-week) regimens of BZN are non-inferior to the standard 8-week treatment. A total of 540 adult participants with no evidence of organ damage (the indeterminate form) or with mild cardiac progression (mild electrocardiographic alterations and without systolic dysfunction or symptoms), all in the chronic phase of CD, will be recruited at six study sites in Argentina and two study sites in Bolivia. Participants will be randomised to receive one of the two shortened regimens of BZN (300 mg per day for 2 or 4 weeks) or standard treatment (300 mg per day for 8 weeks). The primary endpoint is sustained elimination of parasitaemia from the end of treatment through 12 months of follow-up. Secondary endpoints will assess sustained clearance of parasitaemia at 1, 4, 6 and 8 months of follow-up from the end of treatment, drug tolerability and adherence to treatment. NuestroBen will also evaluate whether two shortened regimens of BZN improve drug tolerability and treatment adherence compared with the current standard treatment while maintaining efficacy in participants with the indeterminate form of CD or with mild cardiac involvement.

In Argentina, this study was approved by Fundación de Estudios Farmacológicos y Medicamentos ‘Luis M. Zieher’ for its conduct at the Instituto de Cardiología de Corrientes ‘Juana Francisca Cabral’ (reference: NuestroBen-2020/2021) and the Instituto Nacional de Parasitología ‘Dr. Mario Fatala Chaben’ (reference: NuestroBen-2020/2021) by Comité Institucional de Ética de Investigación en Salud for the Centro de Chagas y Patología Regional de Santiago del Estero (reference: NuestroBen-2020-088/2021), by Comité de Ética en Investigación for the Hospital de Infecciosas F.J. Muñiz (reference: NuestroBen-2020–4037) and the Hospital General de Agudos D.F. Santojanni (reference: NuestroBen-2020–4039) and by Comité de Bioética for the Fundación Huésped (reference: NuestroBen-2020/2021). In Bolivia, it was approved by Comité de Ética en Investigación en Salud from the Universidad Autónoma Juan Misael Saracho (reference: NuestroBen-2020/2025). All participants are asked to provide written informed consent to participate. Recruitment processes started in July 2023, and as of 15 June 2025, 140 participants have been recruited. Findings will be shared with Argentinian and Bolivian public health officials and with the Chagas and tropical medicine communities via international conferences. Findings will also be published in medical journals.

NCT04897516.