Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ASEAN’s artificial-intelligence-for-health literature has grown rapidly, especially since 2020, but the region’s research system remains unevenly integrated. Bibliometric mapping suggests a three-phase transition from sparse, technically oriented research to regional network formation and thematic diversification, followed by rapid but hub-dominated expansion, with publication growth outpacing equitable regional collaboration and broader participation. Despite this momentum, ASEAN still accounts for only a small share of global AI-for-health output, suggesting that regional growth has not yet translated into a proportionate global footprint or shared scientific ownership. The key messages of this viewpoint are as follows: (1) ASEAN’s AI-for-health literature has undergone a structural transition rather than simple numerical growth, evolving from early technical emergence with weak regional ties to network formation and thematic diversification, and then to post-2020 hub-dominated expansion; (2) although intra-ASEAN collaboration has intensified, the regional system remains uneven, with Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand functioning as dominant hubs while smaller national research systems remain peripheral; (3) some publications focus on ASEAN settings despite having no ASEAN-affiliated authors, indicating that the region is not only a producer of knowledge but also an object of externally led research, with important implications for representation, agenda setting, participation, and scientific ownership; (4) the principal policy challenge is no longer whether ASEAN participates in AI-for-health research, but whether it can translate rapid growth into a more equitable, integrated, inclusive, and scientifically sovereign regional knowledge system; and (5) despite rapid expansion, ASEAN still accounts for only a small fraction of global AI-for-health output, underscoring the need to strengthen regional research capacity, visibility, participation, and influence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rabajante et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: