Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38834930›Full record

ArticleGeroScience2024

An ethical assessment of professional opinions on concerns, chances, and limitations of the implementation of an artificial intelligence-based technology into the geriatric patient treatment and continuity of care.

Nina Parchmann, David Hansen, Marcin Orzechowski, Florian Steger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GeroScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Nina ParchmannInstitute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Oberberghof 7, 89081, Ulm, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. nina.parchmann@uni-ulm.de.
David HansenInstitute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Oberberghof 7, 89081, Ulm, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.
Marcin OrzechowskiInstitute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Oberberghof 7, 89081, Ulm, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4244-7989
Florian StegerInstitute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Oberberghof 7, 89081, Ulm, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8108-1591

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GY2101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the introduction of an artificial intelligence-based dashboard into the clinic, the project SURGE-Ahead responds to the importance of improving perioperative geriatric patient treatment and continuity of care. The use of artificial intelligence to process and analyze data automatically, aims at an evidence-based evaluation of the patient's health condition and recommending treatment options. However, its development and introduction raise ethical questions. To ascertain professional perspectives on the clinical use of the dashboard, we have conducted 19 semi-structured qualitative interviews with head physicians, computer scientists, jurists, and ethicists. The application of a qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis enabled the detection of main ethical concerns, chances, and limitations. These ethical considerations were categorized: changes of the patient-physician relationship and the current social reality are expected, causing de-skilling and an active participation of the artificial intelligence. The interviewees anticipated a redistribution of human resources, time, knowledge, and experiences as well as expenses and financing. Concerns of privacy, accuracy, transparency, and explainability were stated, and an insufficient data basis, an intensifying of existing inequalities and systematic discrimination considering a fair access emphasized. Concluding, the patient-physician relationship, social reality, redistribution of resources, fair access, as well as data-related aspects of the artificial intelligence-based system could conflict with the ethical principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and social justice. To respond to these ethical concerns, a responsible use of the dashboard and a critical verification of therapy suggestions is mandatory, and the application limited by questions at the end of life and taking life-changing decisions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceContinuity of Patient CarePhysician-Patient RelationsAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleGeriatricsHumansMaleQualitative ResearchAI-based technologyArtificial intelligenceClinical decision support systemGeriatricsMedical ethicsMultimorbidity

Identifiers

PMID38834930
PMCPMC11493912

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.