Evidence Hub

A systematic review of quantum machine learning for digital health

Gupta RS, Wood CE, Engstrom T, Pole JD, Shrapnel S

NPJ digital medicine, 2025

69 citations

Abstract

The growth in digitization of health data provides opportunities for using algorithmic techniques for data analysis. This systematic review assesses whether quantum machine learning (QML) algorithms outperform existing classical methods for clinical decisioning or health service delivery. Included studies use electronic health/medical records, or reasonable proxy data, and QML algorithms designed for quantum computing hardware. Databases PubMed, Embase, IEEE, Scopus, and preprint server arXiv were searched for studies dated 01/01/2015-10/06/2024. Of an initial 4915 studies, 169 were eligible, with 123 then excluded for insufficient rigor. Only 16 studies consider realistic operating conditions involving quantum hardware or noisy simulations. We find nearly all encountered quantum models form a subset of general QML structures. Scalability of data encoding is partly addressed but requires restrictive hardware assumptions. Overall, performance differentials between quantum and classical algorithms show no consistent trend to support empirical quantum utility in digital health.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free