Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31065857›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2020

Automated vehicles, big data and public health.

David Shaw, Bernard Favrat, Bernice Elger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David ShawInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland. david.shaw@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8180-6927
Bernard FavratFaculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bernice ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 167211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper we focus on how automated vehicles can reduce the number of deaths and injuries in accident situations in order to protect public health. This is actually a problem not only of public health and ethics, but also of big data-not only in terms of all the different data that could be used to inform such decisions, but also in the sense of deciding how wide the scope of data should be. We identify three key different types of data, including basic data, advanced data and preference data, provide an ethical analysis of the use of these different types of data and of different ways of prioritizing between pedestrians and passengers, and propose four rules that can help set ethical priorities for ethical data use and decision making by automated vehicles.

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficAutomobilesBig DataPublic HealthAlgorithmsCognitive DysfunctionDecision MakingHumansMobility LimitationPedestriansVehicle EmissionsVehicle EmissionsAutonomous carsBig dataEthicsPublic health

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.