ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2021
Shared decision-making and maternity care in the deep learning age: Acknowledging and overcoming inherited defeaters.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physicians' required competencies in AI-assisted clinical settings: a systematic review.British medical bulletin · 2025Pooled it
- Intersectional dynamics and care disparities in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: a socio-technical systems perspective.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence for collaborative care planning: Innovations and impacts in shared decision-making - A systematic review.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Review
- Shared Decision Making in Perinatal Care.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2024Article
- Health Equity in Clinical Research Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Review
- Accessing Artificial Intelligence for Fetus Health Status Using Hybrid Deep Learning Algorithm (AlexNet-SVM) on Cardiotocographic Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Implementation Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence Translation Into Health Care Practice: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- [The predictable human : Possibilities and risks of AI-based prediction of cognitive abilities, personality traits and mental illnesses].Der Nervenarzt · 2021Review
- Shared decision-making and maternity care in the deep learning age: Acknowledging and overcoming inherited defeaters.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Humans, machines and decisions: Clinical reasoning in the age of artificial intelligence, evidence-based medicine and Covid-19.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years there has been an explosion of interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) both in health care and academic philosophy. This has been due mainly to the rise of effective machine learning and deep learning algorithms, together with increases in data collection and processing power, which have made rapid progress in many areas. However, use of this technology has brought with it philosophical issues and practical problems, in particular, epistemic and ethical. In this paper the authors, with backgrounds in philosophy, maternity care practice and clinical research, draw upon and extend a recent framework for shared decision-making (SDM) that identified a duty of care to the client's knowledge as a necessary condition for SDM. This duty entails the responsibility to acknowledge and overcome epistemic defeaters. This framework is applied to the use of AI in maternity care, in particular, the use of machine learning and deep learning technology to attempt to enhance electronic fetal monitoring (EFM). In doing so, various sub-kinds of epistemic defeater, namely, transparent, opaque, underdetermined, and inherited defeaters are taxonomized and discussed. The authors argue that, although effective current or future AI-enhanced EFM may impose an epistemic obligation on the part of clinicians to rely on such systems' predictions or diagnoses as input to SDM, such obligations may be overridden by inherited defeaters, caused by a form of algorithmic bias. The existence of inherited defeaters implies that the duty of care to the client's knowledge extends to any situation in which a clinician (or anyone else) is involved in producing training data for a system that will be used in SDM. Any future AI must be capable of assessing women individually, taking into account a wide range of factors including women's preferences, to provide a holistic range of evidence for clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.