Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39240560›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Ethical Considerations in the Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials of Artificial Intelligence.

Alaa Youssef, Ariadne A Nichol, Nicole Martinez-Martin, David B Larson, Michael Abramoff, Risa M Wolf, Danton Char

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ethics of Autonomous AI Clinical Trials: Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Reshaping Anesthesia with Artificial Intelligence: From Concept to Reality.Anesthesia and critical care (Houston, Tex.) · 2025
    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

7 authors.

Alaa YoussefDepartments of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Ariadne A NicholCenter for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Nicole Martinez-MartinCenter for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
David B LarsonDepartments of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Michael AbramoffDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Iowa City.
Risa M WolfDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Danton CharCenter for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.

Funding

Autonomous AI to mitigate disparities for diabetic retinopathy screening in youth during and after COVID-19R01EY033233 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WOLF, RISA MICHELLE · 2021 to 2023
$1.9M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY033233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Safe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical settings often requires randomized clinical trials (RCT) to compare AI efficacy with conventional care. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening is at the forefront of clinical AI applications, marked by the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) De Novo authorization for an autonomous AI for such use. Objective: To determine the generalizability of the 7 ethical research principles for clinical trials endorsed by the National Institute of Health (NIH), and identify ethical concerns unique to clinical trials of AI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study included semistructured interviews conducted with 11 investigators engaged in the design and implementation of clinical trials of AI for DR screening from November 11, 2022, to February 20, 2023. The study was a collaboration with the ACCESS (AI for Children's Diabetic Eye Exams) trial, the first clinical trial of autonomous AI in pediatrics. Participant recruitment initially utilized purposeful sampling, and later expanded with snowball sampling. Study methodology for analysis combined a deductive approach to explore investigators' perspectives of the 7 ethical principles for clinical research endorsed by the NIH and an inductive approach to uncover the broader ethical considerations implementing clinical trials of AI within care delivery. Results: A total of 11 participants (mean [SD] age, 47.5 [12.0] years; 7 male [64%], 4 female [36%]; 3 Asian [27%], 8 White [73%]) were included, with diverse expertise in ethics, ophthalmology, translational medicine, biostatistics, and AI development. Key themes revealed several ethical challenges unique to clinical trials of AI. These themes included difficulties in measuring social value, establishing scientific validity, ensuring fair participant selection, evaluating risk-benefit ratios across various patient subgroups, and addressing the complexities inherent in the data use terms of informed consent. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study identified practical ethical challenges that investigators need to consider and negotiate when conducting AI clinical trials, exemplified by the DR screening use-case. These considerations call for further guidance on where to focus empirical and normative ethical efforts to best support conduct clinical trials of AI and minimize unintended harm to trial participants.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Trials as TopicDiabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchResearch DesignUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39240560
PMCPMC11380101

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.