Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33644301›Full record

ArticleAcademic pathology

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: Principles and Practice.

Brian R Jackson, Ye Ye, James M Crawford, Michael J Becich, Somak Roy, Jeffrey R Botkin, Monica E de Baca, Liron Pantanowitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic pathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Ethical and Legal Governance of Generative AI in Chinese Healthcare.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. AI in Pathology: What could possibly go wrong?Seminars in diagnostic pathology · 2023
    Review
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

8 authors.

Brian R JacksonDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7902-3990
Ye YeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
James M CrawfordDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.
Michael J BecichDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Somak RoyDivision of Pathology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Jeffrey R BotkinDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Monica E de BacaPacific Pathology Partners, Seattle, WA, USA.
Liron PantanowitzDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growing numbers of artificial intelligence applications are being developed and applied to pathology and laboratory medicine. These technologies introduce risks and benefits that must be assessed and managed through the lens of ethics. This article describes how long-standing principles of medical and scientific ethics can be applied to artificial intelligence using examples from pathology and laboratory medicine.

Indexed as

algorithmsartificial intelligencebig dataethicsmachine learningprivacy

Identifiers

PMID33644301
PMCPMC7894680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.