SynthesisJournal of medical ethics2026
Meaningful Human Control over AI for Health? A Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical and Legal Challenges of Partially and Fully Autonomous AI in Healthcare: Reinterpreting Liability and Preserving Trust.Bioethics · 2026Article
- Wearable Devices and Machine Learning in Cardiovascular Monitoring: Current Evidence and Future Directions for Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Beyond Algorithmic Oversight: Internal Morality of Medicine and Meaningful Human Control in AI-Assisted Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and person-centred practice: a critical reflection.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Exploring Attitudes Toward AI-Based Contactless Sensors in Health Among Five Stakeholder Groups: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Can digital brain twins dissolve the uncertainties surrounding unresponsive wakefulness?BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- From body hulls to musculoskeletal models: Personalized inertial parameter estimation.PloS one · 2026Article
- Promoting Responsible Use of AI in African Healthcare: Strengthening Patients' Moral Agency.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- How predictive medicine leads to solidarity gaps in health.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Reasons underdetermination in meaningful human control.Ethics and information technology · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Oncology: Revolution or Cause for Concern?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Physician's autonomy in the face of AI support: walking the ethical tightrope.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Potential Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Disaster Risk and Emergency Health Management: A Critical Appraisal on Environmental Health.Environmental health insights · 2023Article
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
Artificial intelligence is currently changing many areas of society. Especially in health, where critical decisions are made, questions of control must be renegotiated: who is in control when an automated system makes clinically relevant decisions? Increasingly, the concept of meaningful human control (MHC) is being invoked for this purpose. However, it is unclear exactly how this concept is to be understood in health. Through a systematic review, we present the current state of the concept of MHC in health. The results show that there is not yet a robust MHC concept for health. We propose a broader understanding of MHC along three strands of action: enabling, exercising and evaluating control. Taking into account these strands of action and the established rules and processes in the different health sectors, the MHC concept needs to be further developed to avoid falling into two gaps, which we have described as theoretical and labelling gaps.
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.