ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023
An example of governance for AI in health services from Aotearoa New Zealand.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence Governance in Health Systems: Systematic Review of Frameworks and Integrative Model Proposal.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Examining developer perspectives on medical AI regulatory frameworks.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Governance for safe and responsible AI in healthcare organisations: a scoping review of frameworks.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Poipoia Te Kākano Kia Puāwai: The Operationalisation of Māori Data Sovereignty in Aotearoa-A Scoping Literature Review.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026Review
- Advancing healthcare AI governance through a comprehensive maturity model based on systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- From principles to practice: an actionable framework for AI governance in healthcare organisations.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- An early pipeline framework for assessing vendor AI solutions to support return on investment.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Building an Ethical and Trustworthy Biomedical AI Ecosystem for the Translational and Clinical Integration of Foundation Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is undergoing rapid development, meaning that potential risks in application are not able to be fully understood. Multiple international principles and guidance documents have been published to guide the implementation of AI tools in various industries, including healthcare practice. In Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) we recognised that the challenge went beyond simply adapting existing risk frameworks and governance guidance to our specific health service context and population. We also deemed prioritising the voice of Māori (the indigenous people of Aotearoa NZ) a necessary aspect of honouring Te Tiriti (the Treaty of Waitangi), as well as prioritising the needs of healthcare service users and their families. Here we report on the development and establishment of comprehensive and effective governance over the development and implementation of AI tools within a health service in Aotearoa NZ. The implementation of the framework in practice includes testing with real-world proposals and ongoing iteration and refinement of our processes.
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.