Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33551883›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2020

Psychiatric Advance Directives and Artificial Intelligence: A Conceptual Framework for Theoretical and Ethical Principles.

Stéphane Mouchabac, Vladimir Adrien, Clara Falala-Séchet, Olivier Bonnot, Redwan Maatoug, Bruno Millet, Charles-Siegfried Peretti, Alexis Bourla, Florian Ferreri

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Stéphane MouchabacSorbonne Université, AP-HP Department of Psychiatry, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France.
Vladimir AdrienSorbonne Université, AP-HP Department of Psychiatry, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France.
Clara Falala-SéchetLaboratory of Psychopathology and Health Processes, EA 4057, Institute of Psychology, University of Paris, Paris, France.
Olivier BonnotCHU de Nantes, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Nantes, France.
Redwan MaatougSorbonne Université, iCRIN Psychiatry (Infrastructure of Clinical Research In Neurosciences - Psychiatry), Brain and Spine Institute (ICM), INSERM, CNRS, Paris, France.
Bruno MilletSorbonne Université, iCRIN Psychiatry (Infrastructure of Clinical Research In Neurosciences - Psychiatry), Brain and Spine Institute (ICM), INSERM, CNRS, Paris, France.
Charles-Siegfried PerettiSorbonne Université, AP-HP Department of Psychiatry, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France.
Alexis BourlaSorbonne Université, AP-HP Department of Psychiatry, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France.
Florian FerreriSorbonne Université, AP-HP Department of Psychiatry, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The patient's decision-making abilities are often altered in psychiatric disorders. The legal framework of psychiatric advance directives (PADs) has been made to provide care to patients in these situations while respecting their free and informed consent. The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) within Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) may result in improvements for complex decisions that are often made in situations covered by PADs. Still, it raises theoretical and ethical issues this paper aims to address. First, it goes through every level of possible intervention of AI in the PAD drafting process, beginning with what data sources it could access and if its data processing competencies should be limited, then treating of the opportune moments it should be used and its place in the contractual relationship between each party (patient, caregivers, and trusted person). Second, it focuses on ethical principles and how these principles, whether they are medical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) applied to AI or AI principles (loyalty and vigilance) applied to medicine, should be taken into account in the future of the PAD drafting process. Some general guidelines are proposed in conclusion: AI must remain a decision support system as a partner of each party of the PAD contract; patients should be able to choose a personalized type of AI intervention or no AI intervention at all; they should stay informed, i.e., understand the functioning and relevance of AI thanks to educational programs; finally, a committee should be created for ensuring the principle of vigilance by auditing these new tools in terms of successes, failures, security, and relevance.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decision support systemjoint crisis planmedical ethicspredictive medicinepsychiatric advance directives

Identifiers

PMID33551883
PMCPMC7862130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.