Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36441282›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2022

Multi Scale Ethics-Why We Need  to Consider the Ethics of AI in Healthcare at Different Scales.

Melanie Smallman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. [AI in primary care].Atencion primaria · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Complex systems perspective in assessing risks in artificial intelligence.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

1 author.

Melanie SmallmanAlan Turing Institute & Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. m.smallman@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1248-196X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many researchers have documented how AI and data driven technologies have the potential to have profound effects on our lives-in ways that make these technologies stand out from those that went before. Around the world, we are seeing a significant growth in interest and investment in AI in healthcare. This has been coupled with rising concerns about the ethical implications of these technologies and an array of ethical guidelines for the use of AI and data in healthcare has arisen. Nevertheless, the question of if and how AI and data technologies can be ethical remains open to debate. This paper aims to contribute to this debate by considering the wide range of implications that have been attributed to these technologies and asking whether current ethical guidelines take these factors into account. In particular, the paper argues that while current ethics guidelines for AI in healthcare effectively account for the four key issues identified in the ethics literature (transparency; fairness; responsibility and privacy), they have largely neglected wider issues relating to the way in which these technologies shape institutional and social arrangements. This, I argue, has given current ethics guidelines a strong focus on evaluating the impact of these technologies on the individual, while not accounting for the powerful social shaping effects of these technologies. To address this, the paper proposes a Multiscale Ethics Framework, which aims to help technology developers and ethical evaluations to consider the wider implications of these technologies.

Indexed as

MoralsTechnologyArtificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CarePrivacyCoproductionData ethicsEthicsGroup effectsMulitscale ethicsMultiscale ethics frameworkScaleSTS

Identifiers

PMID36441282
PMCPMC9705474

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.