ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2023
Specific challenges posed by artificial intelligence in research ethics.
Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structural characteristics of research ethics committees in Japan and their relevance to regulatory science: a nationwide descriptive study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- The Challenges of Web Scraping and AI for Research Ethics in Canada: A Survey of University REBs.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Research Ethics Committees (RECs) perspectives on large language models and AI ethics review: a South African case.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Roles and functioning of the European Union National Ethics Councils (NECs): a cross-sectional study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values.AI and ethics · 2026Article
- Nursing Educators' Perceptions of AI in Research: Risks and Benefits.Nursing research and practice · 2026Article
- Editorial: Research ethics and integrity in the artificial intelligence era.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Tracing Prescribed Knowledge Flows in Wastewater Management Policies: An AI-Assisted, Governmentality-Informed Framework with Insights from Indonesia.Environmental management · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence as team member versus manual screening to conduct systematic reviews in medical sciences.iScience · 2025Article
- Effective Recruitment or Bot Attack? The Challenge of Internet-Based Research Surveys and Recommendations to Reduce Risk and Improve Robustness.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Exosomes in Precision Oncology and Beyond: From Bench to Bedside in Diagnostics and Therapeutics.Cancers · 2025Review
- Knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of MENA researchers towards the use of ChatGPT in research: A cross-sectional study.Heliyon · 2025Article
- AI in business operations: driving urban growth and societal sustainability.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Cutting-edge AI tools revolutionizing scientific research in life sciences.Biotechnologia · 2025Review
- Enhancing neuro-oncology care through equity-driven applications of artificial intelligence.Neuro-oncology · 2024Review
- Ethical considerations and concerns in the implementation of AI in pharmacy practice: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Individuals and (Synthetic) Data Points: Using Value-Sensitive Design to Foster Ethical Deliberations on Epistemic Transitions.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The twenty first century is often defined as the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which raises many questions regarding its impact on society. It is already significantly changing many practices in different fields. Research ethics (RE) is no exception. Many challenges, including responsibility, privacy, and transparency, are encountered. Research ethics boards (REB) have been established to ensure that ethical practices are adequately followed during research projects. This scoping review aims to bring out the challenges of AI in research ethics and to investigate if REBs are equipped to evaluate them. Methods: Three electronic databases were selected to collect peer-reviewed articles that fit the inclusion criteria (English or French, published between 2016 and 2021, containing AI, RE, and REB). Two instigators independently reviewed each piece by screening with Covidence and then coding with NVivo. Results: From having a total of 657 articles to review, we were left with a final sample of 28 relevant papers for our scoping review. The selected literature described AI in research ethics (i.e., views on current guidelines, key ethical concept and approaches, key issues of the current state of AI-specific RE guidelines) and REBs regarding AI (i.e., their roles, scope and approaches, key practices and processes, limitations and challenges, stakeholder perceptions). However, the literature often described REBs ethical assessment practices of projects in AI research as lacking knowledge and tools. Conclusion: Ethical reflections are taking a step forward while normative guidelines adaptation to AI's reality is still dawdling. This impacts REBs and most stakeholders involved with AI. Indeed, REBs are not equipped enough to adequately evaluate AI research ethics and require standard guidelines to help them do so.
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.