ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Disability 4.0: bioethical considerations on the use of embodied artificial intelligence.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The rise and potential opportunities of large language model agents in bioinformatics and biomedicine.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Integrating enterprise risk management to address AI-related risks in healthcare: Strategies for effective risk mitigation and implementation.Journal of healthcare risk management : the journal of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotics and artificial intelligence have marked the beginning of a new era in the care and integration of people with disabilities, helping to promote their independence, autonomy and social participation. In this area, bioethical reflection assumes a key role at anthropological, ethical, legal and socio-political levels. However, there is currently a substantial diversity of opinions and ethical arguments, as well as a lack of consensus on the use of assistive robots, while the focus remains predominantly on the usability of products. The article presents a bioethical analysis that highlights the risk arising from using embodied artificial intelligence according to a functionalist model. Failure to recognize disability as the result of a complex interplay between health, personal and situational factors could result in potential damage to the intrinsic dignity of the person and human relations with healthcare workers. Furthermore, the danger of discrimination in accessing these new technologies is highlighted, emphasizing the need for an ethical approach that considers the social and moral implications of implementing embodied AI in the field of rehabilitation.
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.