ArticleScience and engineering ethics2022
The Future Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Making Sense of Collaborative Models.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 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
- Assessing Total Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes and Generating an Orthopedic Research Outcome Database via a Natural Language Processing Pipeline: Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Review
- Application of AI in Sepsis: Citation Network Analysis and Evidence Synthesis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence implementation within sports science and sports medicine teams.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Machine learning models to predict surgical case duration compared to current industry standards: scoping review.BJS open · 2023Article
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Care: A Values-Based Guide for Shared Decision Making.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in respiratory care: Current scenario and future perspective.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article examines the role of medical doctors, AI designers, and other stakeholders in making applied AI and machine learning ethically acceptable on the general premises of shared decision-making in medicine. Recent policy documents such as the EU strategy on trustworthy AI and the research literature have often suggested that AI could be made ethically acceptable by increased collaboration between developers and other stakeholders. The article articulates and examines four central alternative models of how AI can be designed and applied in patient care, which we call the ordinary evidence model, the ethical design model, the collaborative model, and the public deliberation model. We argue that the collaborative model is the most promising for covering most AI technology, while the public deliberation model is called for when the technology is recognized as fundamentally transforming the conditions for ethical shared 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.