Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36650296›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2023

[Artificial intelligence and ethics in healthcare-balancing act or symbiosis?]

Dennis Küster, Tanja Schultz

Open access · hybridAbstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dennis KüsterCognitive Systems Lab, Universität Bremen, Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, 28359, Bremen, Deutschland. kuester@uni-bremen.de.
Tanja SchultzCognitive Systems Lab, Universität Bremen, Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, 28359, Bremen, Deutschland.
University of Bremen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly important in healthcare. This development triggers serious concerns that can be summarized by six major "worst-case scenarios". From AI spreading disinformation and propaganda, to a potential new arms race between major powers, to a possible rule of algorithms ("algocracy") based on biased gatekeeper intelligence, the real dangers of an uncontrolled development of AI are by no means to be underestimated, especially in the health sector. However, fear of AI could cause humanity to miss the opportunity to positively shape the development of our society together with an AI that is friendly to us.Use cases in healthcare play a primary role in this discussion, as both the risks and the opportunities of new AI-based systems become particularly clear here. For example, would older people with dementia (PWD) be allowed to entrust aspects of their autonomy to AI-based assistance systems so that they may continue to independently manage other aspects of their daily lives? In this paper, we argue that the classic balancing act between the dangers and opportunities of AI in healthcare can be at least partially overcome by taking a long-term ethical approach toward a symbiotic relationship between humans and AI. We exemplify this approach by showcasing our I‑CARE system, an AI-based recommendation system for tertiary prevention of dementia. This system has been in development since 2015 as the I‑CARE Project at the University of Bremen, where it is still being researched today.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDementiaAgedDelivery of Health CareGermanyHumansSymbiosisAssistance systemsAutonomyDementiaLifespanWorst-case scenarios

Identifiers

PMID36650296
PMCPMC9892090
OpenAlexW4317039306

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.