ArticleAI and ethics2022
Ethical funding for trustworthy AI: proposals to address the responsibilities of funders to ensure that projects adhere to trustworthy AI practice.
Article in AI and ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advancing cybersecurity and privacy with artificial intelligence: current trends and future research directions.Frontiers in big data · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Paradigms for Next-Generation Metal-Organic Framework Research.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2025Review
- An ecosystem approach to governing commercial actors in healthcare AI.Policy studies (Policy Studies Institute) · 2025Article
- Toward Safe and Ethical Implementation of Health Care Artificial Intelligence: Insights From an Academic Medical Center.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- The artificial intelligence cooperative: READ-COOP, Transkribus, and the benefits of shared community infrastructure for automated text recognition.Open research Europe · 2025Article
- Electronic Health Record Data Quality and Performance Assessments: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Scoping Review Shows the Dynamics and Complexities Inherent to the Notion of "Responsibility" in Artificial Intelligence within the Healthcare Context.Asian bioethics review · 2024Article
- Centering Public Perceptions on Translating AI Into Clinical Practice: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Consultation Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- A step toward building a unified framework for managing AI bias.PeerJ. Computer science · 2023Article
- Raising awareness of sex and gender bias in artificial intelligence and health.Frontiers in global women's health · 2023Article
- The assessment list for trustworthy artificial intelligence: A review and recommendations.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Quality Models for Artificial Intelligence Systems: Characteristic-Based Approach, Development and Application.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI systems that demonstrate significant bias or lower than claimed accuracy, and resulting in individual and societal harms, continue to be reported. Such reports beg the question as to why such systems continue to be funded, developed and deployed despite the many published ethical AI principles. This paper focusses on the funding processes for AI research grants which we have identified as a gap in the current range of ethical AI solutions such as AI procurement guidelines, AI impact assessments and AI audit frameworks. We highlight the responsibilities of funding bodies to ensure investment is channelled towards trustworthy and safe AI systems and provides case studies as to how other ethical funding principles are managed. We offer a first sight of two proposals for funding bodies to consider regarding procedures they can employ. The first proposal is for the inclusion of a Trustworthy AI Statement' section in the grant application form and offers an example of the associated guidance. The second proposal outlines the wider management requirements of a funding body for the ethical review and monitoring of funded projects to ensure adherence to the proposed ethical strategies in the applicants Trustworthy AI Statement. The anticipated outcome for such proposals being employed would be to create a 'stop and think' section during the project planning and application procedure requiring applicants to implement the methods for the ethically aligned design of AI. In essence it asks funders to send the message "if you want the money, then build trustworthy AI!".
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.