Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38499692›Full record

ArticleRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Ethics and artificial intelligence].

Elmar Kotter, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Elmar KotterKlinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Deutschland. elmar.kotter@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
Daniel Pinto Dos SantosInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland. daniel.pinto-dos-santos@uk-koeln.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into radiology promises to enhance efficiency and improve diagnostic accuracy, yet it also raises manifold ethical questions. These include data protection issues, the future role of radiologists, liability when using AI systems, and the avoidance of bias. To prevent data bias, the datasets need to be compiled carefully and to be representative of the target population. Accordingly, the upcoming European Union AI act sets particularly high requirements for the datasets used in training medical AI systems. Cognitive bias occurs when radiologists place too much trust in the results provided by AI systems (overreliance). So far, diagnostic AI systems are used almost exclusively as "second look" systems. If diagnostic AI systems are to be used in the future as "first look" systems or even as autonomous AI systems in order to enhance efficiency in radiology, the question of liability needs to be addressed, comparable to liability for autonomous driving. Such use of AI would also significantly change the role of radiologists.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiologyComputer SecurityHumansBiasEthics of medicineEuropean Union artificial intelligence actLiabilityRadiology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.