ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Keeping the "Human in the Loop" in the Age of Artificial Intelligence : Accompanying Commentary for "Correcting the Brain?" by Rainey and Erden.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives of Patients Regarding Artificial Intelligence and Its Application in Healthcare: A Qualitative Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Transparency of medical artificial intelligence systems.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2026Article
- AI and Neurology.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
- When can we Kick (Some) Humans "Out of the Loop"? An Examination of the use of AI in Medical Imaging for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2024Article
- Transforming Healthcare with AI: Promises, Pitfalls, and Pathways Forward.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- A shift in psychiatry through AI? Ethical challenges.Annals of general psychiatry · 2023Article
- The impact of artificial intelligence on the person-centred, doctor-patient relationship: some problems and solutions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Review
- Operationalising AI governance through ethics-based auditing: an industry case study.AI and ethics · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Sword of Damocles?Journal of medical systems · 2021Article
- Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitations.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Editorial: Shaping Ethical Futures in Brain-Based and Artificial Intelligence Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The benefits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medicine are unquestionable and it is unlikely that the pace of its development will slow down. From better diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention to more precise surgical procedures, AI has the potential to offer unique opportunities to enhance patient care and improve clinical practice overall. However, at this stage of AI technology development it is unclear whether it will de-humanize or re-humanize medicine. Will AI allow clinicians to spend less time on administrative tasks and technology related procedures and more time being present in person to attend to the needs of their patients? Or will AI dramatically increase the presence of smart technology in the clinical context to a point of undermining the humane dimension of the patient-physician relationship? In this brief commentary, we argue that technological solutions should be only integrated into clinical medicine if they fulfill the following three conditions: (1) they serve human ends; (2) they respect personal identity; and (3) they promote human interaction. These three conditions form the moral imperative of humanity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32643058What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.