Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35598004›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2022

Public governance of medical artificial intelligence research in the UK: an integrated multi-scale model.

Francis McKay, Bethany J Williams, Graham Prestwich, Darren Treanor, Nina Hallowell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Francis McKayDepartment of Population Health, The Ethox Centre and the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Nuffield, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, England. francis.mckay@ethox.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3177-9446
Bethany J WilliamsDepartment of Histopathology, St James University Hospital, Bexley Wing, Leeds, LS9 7TF, England.
Graham PrestwichYorkshire and Humber Academic Health Science Network, Unit 1, Calder Close, Calder Park, Wakefield, WF4 3BA, England.
Darren TreanorDepartment of Histopathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, England.
Nina HallowellDepartment of Population Health, The Ethox Centre and the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Nuffield, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, England.

Funding

UKRI 104687Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing consensus among scholars, national governments, and intergovernmental organisations of the need to involve the public in decision-making around the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in society. Focusing on the UK, this paper asks how that can be achieved for medical AI research, that is, for research involving the training of AI on data from medical research databases. Public governance of medical AI research in the UK is generally achieved in three ways, namely, via lay representation on data access committees, through patient and public involvement groups, and by means of various deliberative democratic projects such as citizens' juries, citizen panels, citizen assemblies, etc.-what we collectively call "citizen forums". As we will show, each of these public involvement initiatives have complementary strengths and weaknesses for providing oversight of medical AI research. As they are currently utilized, however, they are unable to realize the full potential of their complementarity due to insufficient information transfer across them. In order to synergistically build on their contributions, we offer here a multi-scale model integrating all three. In doing so we provide a unified public governance model for medical AI research, one that, we argue, could improve the trustworthiness of big data and AI related medical research in the future.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCitizen forumsData access committeesGovernanceMedical researchPublic involvement

Identifiers

PMID35598004
PMCPMC9123617

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.