Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36643877›Full record

ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2023

Artificial Intelligence in Reproductive Medicine - An Ethical Perspective.

Vasilija Rolfes, Uta Bittner, Helene Gerhards, Jan-Steffen Krüssel, Tanja Fehm, Robert Ranisch, Heiner Fangerau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Genetic and Epigenetic Risks of Male Infertility in ART.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Single Sperm RNA signatures reveal MicroRNA biomarkers for male subfertility.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Vasilija RolfesInstitut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7306-7017
Uta BittnerInstitut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Helene GerhardsInstitut für Sozialforschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung, Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9795-2689
Jan-Steffen KrüsselKlinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitäres interdisziplinäres Kinderwunschzentrum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Tanja FehmKlinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Robert RanischJuniorprofessur für Medizinische Ethik mit Schwerpunkt auf Digitalisierung, Universität Potsdam, Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften Brandenburg, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1676-1694
Heiner FangerauInstitut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is steadily being integrated into all areas of medicine. In reproductive medicine, artificial intelligence methods can be utilized to improve the selection and prediction of sperm cells, oocytes, and embryos and to generate better predictive models for in vitro fertilization. The use of artificial intelligence in this field is justified by the suffering of persons or couples who wish to have children but are unable to conceive. However, research into the use of artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine is still in the early experimental stage and furthermore raises complex normative questions. There are ethical research challenges because evidence of the efficacy of certain pertinent systems is often lacking and because of the increased difficulty of ensuring informed consent on the part of the affected persons. Other ethically relevant issues include the potential risks for offspring and the difficulty of providing sufficient information. The opportunity to fulfill the desire to have children affects the welfare of patients and their reproductive autonomy. Ultimately, ensuring more accurate predictions and allowing physicians to devote more time to their patients will have a positive effect. Nevertheless, clinicians must be able to process patient data conscientiously. When using artificial intelligence, numerous actors are involved in making the diagnosis and deciding on the appropriate therapy, raising questions about who is ultimately responsible when mistakes occur. Questions of fairness arise with regard to resource allocation and cost reimbursement. Thus, before implementing artificial intelligence in clinical practice, it is necessary to critically examine the quantity and quality of the data used and to address issues of transparency. In the medium and long term, it would be necessary to confront the undesirable impact and social dynamics that may accompany the use of artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceinfertilitymedical ethicsreproductive medicineresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID36643877
PMCPMC9833891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.