ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Liability of Health Professionals Using Sensors, Telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence for Remote Healthcare.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurses' perspectives on remote healthcare delivery and its implications for practice and education: qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- When Intuition Meets the Algorithm: Medico-Legal Implications of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Decision-Making in Orthopedics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Beyond the algorithm: embedding ethics for trustworthy AI in radiology and oncology.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesia: Enhancing Precision, Safety, and Global Access Through Data-Driven Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Policy Challenges in Ultra-Rare Cancers: Ethical, Social, and Legal Implications of Melanoma Prevention and Diagnosis in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Perspectives of healthcare providers on telemedicine implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia: a mixed-method study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Navigating the AI tide: challenges, opportunities, and future directions for early-career dermatologists.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- AI-driven transformation of precision medicine: a comprehensive narrative review of key application areas, emerging paradigms, and future directions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Rhythm Diagnostic Systems' MultiSenseSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- AI support in prehospital telemedicine: Perspectives of tele-emergency physicians and ethical considerations.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the last few decades, there has been an ongoing transformation of our healthcare system with larger use of sensors for remote care and artificial intelligence (AI) tools. In particular, sensors improved by new algorithms with learning capabilities have proven their value for better patient care. Sensors and AI systems are no longer only non-autonomous devices such as the ones used in radiology or surgical robots; there are novel tools with a certain degree of autonomy aiming to largely modulate the medical decision. Thus, there will be situations in which the doctor is the one making the decision and has the final say and other cases in which the doctor might only apply the decision presented by the autonomous device. As those are two hugely different situations, they should not be treated the same way, and different liability rules should apply. Despite a real interest in the promise of sensors and AI in medicine, doctors and patients are reluctant to use it. One important reason is a lack clear definition of liability. Nobody wants to be at fault, or even prosecuted, because they followed the advice from an AI system, notably when it has not been perfectly adapted to a specific patient. Fears are present even with simple sensors and AI use, such as during telemedicine visits based on very useful, clinically pertinent sensors; with the risk of missing an important parameter; and, of course, when AI appears "intelligent", potentially replacing the doctors' judgment. This paper aims to provide an overview of the liability of the health professional in the context of the use of sensors and AI tools in remote healthcare, analyzing four regimes: the contract-based approach, the approach based on breach of duty to inform, the fault-based approach, and the approach related to the good itself. We will also discuss future challenges and opportunities in the promising domain of sensors and AI use in medicine.
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.