ArticleNeurology2021
Guidelines for Conducting Ethical Artificial Intelligence Research in Neurology: A Systematic Approach for Clinicians and Researchers.
Article in Neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guidelines, Consensus Statements, and Standards for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in neurology practice: promise, perils, and a roadmap for responsible integration.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Important Ethical, Technical, and Epidemiological Considerations in an AI Tool Production (ETEPAI): Scoping Review.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- Education Research: Bridging the Artificial Intelligence Training Gap: Evidence from a National Survey of Italian Neurology Residents.Neurology. Education · 2026Article
- How to report neurotechnology and artificial intelligence studies in epilepsy: Peer-review-inspired recommendations.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Extracting epilepsy-related information from unstructured clinic letters using large language models.Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Article
- Supervised machine learning compared to large language models for identifying functional seizures from medical records.Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Large language models for neurology: a mini review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, and dental education: Implications for reflective assignments and qualitative research.Journal of dental education · 2024Article
- Common Critiques and Recommendations for Studies in Neurology Using Machine Learning Methods.Neurology · 2024Article
- Article
- Health Equity in Clinical Research Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Review
- A scoping review of neurodegenerative manifestations in explainable digital phenotyping.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2023Article
- Choosing the Best Antiseizure Medication-Can Artificial Intelligence Help?JAMA neurology · 2022Article
- Article
- Editorial: Seizure Forecasting and Detection: Computational Models, Machine Learning, and Translation Into Devices.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Basic Empathy Scale: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Preemptive recognition of the ethical implications of study design and algorithm choices in artificial intelligence (AI) research is an important but challenging process. AI applications have begun to transition from a promising future to clinical reality in neurology. As the clinical management of neurology is often concerned with discrete, often unpredictable, and highly consequential events linked to multimodal data streams over long timescales, forthcoming advances in AI have great potential to transform care for patients. However, critical ethical questions have been raised with implementation of the first AI applications in clinical practice. Clearly, AI will have far-reaching potential to promote, but also to endanger, ethical clinical practice. This article employs an anticipatory ethics approach to scrutinize how researchers in neurology can methodically identify ethical ramifications of design choices early in the research and development process, with a goal of preempting unintended consequences that may violate principles of ethical clinical care. First, we discuss the use of a systematic framework for researchers to identify ethical ramifications of various study design and algorithm choices. Second, using epilepsy as a paradigmatic example, anticipatory clinical scenarios that illustrate unintended ethical consequences are discussed, and failure points in each scenario evaluated. Third, we provide practical recommendations for understanding and addressing ethical ramifications early in methods development stages. Awareness of the ethical implications of study design and algorithm choices that may unintentionally enter AI is crucial to ensuring that incorporation of AI into neurology care leads to patient benefit rather than harm.
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.