Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38527299›Full record

ReviewSingapore medical journal2024

Ethics of artificial intelligence in medicine.

Julian Savulescu, Alberto Giubilini, Robert Vandersluis, Abhishek Mishra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Singapore medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. IsAI & society · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Psychiatry and artificial intelligence: A need for informed engagement.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Julian SavulescuYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Alberto GiubiliniOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robert VandersluisOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abhishek MishraOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractThis article reviews the main ethical issues that arise from the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in medicine. Issues around trust, responsibility, risks of discrimination, privacy, autonomy, and potential benefits and harms are assessed. For better or worse, AI is a promising technology that can revolutionise healthcare delivery. It is up to us to make AI a tool for the good by ensuring that ethical oversight accompanies the design, development and implementation of AI technology in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMedicineHumans

Identifiers

PMID38527299
PMCPMC7615805

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.