ArticlePloS one2023
Mapping the flow of knowledge as guidance for ethics implementation in medical AI: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Research hotspots and trends of artificial intelligence ethics in medicine: A bibliometric analysis from 1999 to 2025.Digital healthReview
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
In response to the COVID-19 crisis, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been applied to a range of applications in healthcare and public health such as case identification or monitoring of the population. The urgency of the situation should not be to the detriment of considering the ethical implications of such apps. Implementing ethics in medical AI is a complex issue calling for a systems thinking approach engaging diverse representatives of the stakeholders in a consultative process. The participatory engagement aims to gather the different perspectives of the stakeholders about the app in a transparent and inclusive way. In this study, we engaged a group of clinicians, patients, and AI developers in conversations about a fictitious app which was an aggregate of actual COVID-19 apps. The app featured a COVID-19 symptoms monitoring function for both the patient and the clinician, as well as infection clusters tracking for health agencies. Anchored in Soft Systems Methodology and Critical Systems Thinking, participants were asked to map the flow of knowledge between the clinician, the patient, and the AI app system and answer questions about the ethical boundaries of the system. Because data and information are the resource and the product of the AI app, understanding the nature of the information and knowledge exchanged between the different agents of the system can reveal ethical issues. In this study, not only the output of the participatory process was analysed, but the process of the stakeholders' engagement itself was studied as well. To establish a strong foundation for the implementation of ethics in the AI app, the conversations among stakeholders need to be inclusive, respectful and allow for free and candid dialogues ensuring that the process is transparent for which a systemic intervention is well suited.
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.