Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38894282›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Liability of Health Professionals Using Sensors, Telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence for Remote Healthcare.

Marie Geny, Emmanuel Andres, Samy Talha, Bernard Geny

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Accuracy of Rhythm Diagnostic Systems' MultiSenseSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
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.

Marie GenyJoint Research Unit-UMR 7354, Law, Religion, Business and Society, University of Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Emmanuel AndresBiomedicine Research Center of Strasbourg (CRBS), UR 3072, "Mitochondria, Oxidative Stress and Muscle Plasticity", University of Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7914-7616
Samy TalhaBiomedicine Research Center of Strasbourg (CRBS), UR 3072, "Mitochondria, Oxidative Stress and Muscle Plasticity", University of Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2094-2842
Bernard GenyBiomedicine Research Center of Strasbourg (CRBS), UR 3072, "Mitochondria, Oxidative Stress and Muscle Plasticity", University of Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceTelemedicineAlgorithmsCOVID-19Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansLiability, Legalartificial intelligencecivil and tort lawethicshealthcareprofessional liabilityresponsibilitysensorstelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38894282
PMCPMC11174849

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.