SynthesisBMC medical ethics2023
Should Artificial Intelligence be used to support clinical ethical decision-making? A systematic review of reasons.
Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The evolving literature on the ethics of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a PRISMA scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring young adult cancer survivors' perspectives on generative AI chatbots for symptom support.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Ethical considerations of artificial intelligence in dementia research: a review of reviews.The Gerontologist · 2026Review
- Digital bioethics: exploring an emerging field.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2026Article
- Beyond Algorithmic Oversight: Internal Morality of Medicine and Meaningful Human Control in AI-Assisted Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Can health technologies be "care optimizers"? A normative evaluation of digital health technologies in light of postphenomenological reflections.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Enhancing dental clinical education through AI: insights into post-clinical summaries.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Review
- Process Systems Engineering in Precision Medicine: Opportunities in Autologous CAR-T Therapy.Engineering in life sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Clinical nursing interns' perceptions of artificial intelligence-assisted tools in human-AI collaboration: a qualitative persona-based study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial autonomy and algorithmic paternalism: AI shaping human autonomy and decision-making.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence guidance in ethically challenging clinical scenarios in child and adolescent psychiatry: a qualitative study in the context of Turkiye.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Refining AI perspectives: assessing the impact of ai curricular on medical students' attitudes towards artificial intelligence.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Writing the Future: Artificial Intelligence, Handwriting, and Early Biomarkers for Parkinson's Disease Diagnosis and Monitoring.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Ethical and social considerations of applying artificial intelligence in healthcare-a two-pronged scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Machine learning in colorectal polyp surveillance: A paradigm shift in post-endoscopic mucosal resection follow-up.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Ethical considerations on the role of artificial intelligence in defining the futility in emergency surgery.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare providers have to make ethically complex clinical decisions which may be a source of stress. Researchers have recently introduced Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications to assist in clinical ethical decision-making. However, the use of such tools is controversial. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the reasons given in the academic literature for and against their use.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Philpapers.org and Google Scholar were searched for all relevant publications. The resulting set of publications was title and abstract screened according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in 44 papers whose full texts were analysed using the Kuckartz method of qualitative text analysis.
resultsArtificial Intelligence might increase patient autonomy by improving the accuracy of predictions and allowing patients to receive their preferred treatment. It is thought to increase beneficence by providing reliable information, thereby, supporting surrogate decision-making. Some authors fear that reducing ethical decision-making to statistical correlations may limit autonomy. Others argue that AI may not be able to replicate the process of ethical deliberation because it lacks human characteristics. Concerns have been raised about issues of justice, as AI may replicate existing biases in the decision-making process.
conclusionsThe prospective benefits of using AI in clinical ethical decision-making are manifold, but its development and use should be undertaken carefully to avoid ethical pitfalls. Several issues that are central to the discussion of Clinical Decision Support Systems, such as justice, explicability or human-machine interaction, have been neglected in the debate on AI for clinical ethics so far.
trial registrationThis review is registered at Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/wvcs9 ).
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.