ArticleBMC medical ethics2023
Should AI allocate livers for transplant? Public attitudes and ethical considerations.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Implications for Solid Organ Transplantation With the Use of Artificial Intelligence From a Bibliometric Perspective.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- New eHealth Users After COVID-19: Adoption and Resistance in Spain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring the challenges: main contraindications in organ donation in ColombiaBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2026Article
- Othering, Stigma, and Normalization: A Key Informant Interview Study on Ethical Issues in Alcohol Policy in Australia.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- The integration of psychosocial care, ethical governance, and patient-centered research in current and future approaches in the field of vascularized composite allotransplantation.Frontiers in transplantation · 2026Review
- Assessing knowledge and perception of artificial intelligence in solid organ transplantation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Machine Learning for Predicting 12-Month Survival after Liver Transplantation: Temporal Validation, Calibration, and Decision-Analytic Evaluation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Review
- Beyond generic principles: a framework for the ethical analysis of artificial intelligence in organ transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
- Article
- Shaping the Future of AI in Organ Transplantation: Position Paper of the European Society for Organ Transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
- Should We Use Behavioural Predictions in Organ Allocation?Bioethics · 2025Article
- An In-depth overview of artificial intelligence (AI) tool utilization across diverse phases of organ transplantation.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Ethics and Algorithms to Navigate AI's Emerging Role in Organ Transplantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Ethical frontiers in liver transplantation.World journal of transplantation · 2024Review
- Bioethical challenges in the integration of artificial intelligence in transplant surgery 4.0: A scoping review.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAllocation of scarce organs for transplantation is ethically challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to assist in liver allocation, however the ethics of this remains unexplored and the view of the public unknown. The aim of this paper was to assess public attitudes on whether AI should be used in liver allocation and how it should be implemented.
methodsWe first introduce some potential ethical issues concerning AI in liver allocation, before analysing a pilot survey including online responses from 172 UK laypeople, recruited through Prolific Academic.
findingsMost participants found AI in liver allocation acceptable (69.2%) and would not be less likely to donate their organs if AI was used in allocation (72.7%). Respondents thought AI was more likely to be consistent and less biased compared to humans, although were concerned about the "dehumanisation of healthcare" and whether AI could consider important nuances in allocation decisions. Participants valued accuracy, impartiality, and consistency in a decision-maker, more than interpretability and empathy. Respondents were split on whether AI should be trained on previous decisions or programmed with specific objectives. Whether allocation decisions were made by transplant committee or AI, participants valued consideration of urgency, survival likelihood, life years gained, age, future medication compliance, quality of life, future alcohol use and past alcohol use. On the other hand, the majority thought the following factors were not relevant to prioritisation: past crime, future crime, future societal contribution, social disadvantage, and gender.
conclusionsThere are good reasons to use AI in liver allocation, and our sample of participants appeared to support its use. If confirmed, this support would give democratic legitimacy to the use of AI in this context and reduce the risk that donation rates could be affected negatively. Our findings on specific ethical concerns also identify potential expectations and reservations laypeople have regarding AI in this area, which can inform how AI in liver allocation could be best implemented.
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.