Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37692617›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Unraveling the Ethical Enigma: Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare.

Madhan Jeyaraman, Sangeetha Balaji, Naveen Jeyaraman, Sankalp Yadav

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–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

115 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. [Medical education and artificial intelligence: perspectives and ethical challenges].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Madhan JeyaramanOrthopedics, ACS Medical College and Hospital, Dr. MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, IND.
Sangeetha BalajiOrthopedics, Government Medical College, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai, IND.
Naveen JeyaramanOrthopedics, ACS Medical College and Hospital, Dr. MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, IND.
Sankalp YadavMedicine, Shri Madan Lal Khurana Chest Clinic, New Delhi, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare promises groundbreaking advancements in patient care, revolutionizing clinical diagnosis, predictive medicine, and decision-making. This transformative technology uses machine learning, natural language processing, and large language models (LLMs) to process and reason like human intelligence. OpenAI's ChatGPT, a sophisticated LLM, holds immense potential in medical practice, research, and education. However, as AI in healthcare gains momentum, it brings forth profound ethical challenges that demand careful consideration. This comprehensive review explores key ethical concerns in the domain, including privacy, transparency, trust, responsibility, bias, and data quality. Protecting patient privacy in data-driven healthcare is crucial, with potential implications for psychological well-being and data sharing. Strategies like homomorphic encryption (HE) and secure multiparty computation (SMPC) are vital to preserving confidentiality. Transparency and trustworthiness of AI systems are essential, particularly in high-risk decision-making scenarios. Explainable AI (XAI) emerges as a critical aspect, ensuring a clear understanding of AI-generated predictions. Cybersecurity becomes a pressing concern as AI's complexity creates vulnerabilities for potential breaches. Determining responsibility in AI-driven outcomes raises important questions, with debates on AI's moral agency and human accountability. Shifting from data ownership to data stewardship enables responsible data management in compliance with regulations. Addressing bias in healthcare data is crucial to avoid AI-driven inequities. Biases present in data collection and algorithm development can perpetuate healthcare disparities. A public-health approach is advocated to address inequalities and promote diversity in AI research and the workforce. Maintaining data quality is imperative in AI applications, with convolutional neural networks showing promise in multi-input/mixed data models, offering a comprehensive patient perspective. In this ever-evolving landscape, it is imperative to adopt a multidimensional approach involving policymakers, developers, healthcare practitioners, and patients to mitigate ethical concerns. By understanding and addressing these challenges, we can harness the full potential of AI in healthcare while ensuring ethical and equitable outcomes.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (ai)chatgpthealthcarehomo-morphic encryptionlarge language modelssecure multiparty computation

Identifiers

PMID37692617
PMCPMC10492220

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.