ReviewFrontiers in nuclear medicine2022
Leveraging law and ethics to promote safe and reliable AI/ML in healthcare.
Review in Frontiers in nuclear medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced Drug Delivery Strategies for Overcoming Biological Barriers: Tumor Microenvironment and Blood-Brain Barrier.Drugs in R&D · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Narrative Review of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Applications.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- The Heart of Transformation: Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Disease.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Applied artificial intelligence for global child health: Addressing biases and barriers.PLOS digital health · 2024Review
- Advancing Precision Medicine: A Review of Innovative In Silico Approaches for Drug Development, Clinical Pharmacology and Personalized Healthcare.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Psychological Counseling: A Narrative Review and Governance Framework.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) is poised to disrupt the structure and delivery of healthcare, promising to optimize care clinical care delivery and information management. AI/ML offers potential benefits in healthcare, such as creating novel clinical decision support tools, pattern recognition software, and predictive modeling systems. This raises questions about how AI/ML will impact the physician-patient relationship and the practice of medicine. Effective utilization and reliance on AI/ML also requires that these technologies are safe and reliable. Potential errors could not only pose serious risks to patient safety, but also expose physicians, hospitals, and AI/ML manufacturers to liability. This review describes how the law provides a mechanism to promote safety and reliability of AI/ML systems. On the front end, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) intends to regulate many AI/ML as medical devices, which corresponds to a set of regulatory requirements prior to product marketing and use. Post-development, a variety of mechanisms in the law provide guardrails for careful deployment into clinical practice that can also incentivize product improvement. This review provides an overview of potential areas of liability arising from AI/ML including malpractice, informed consent, corporate liability, and products liability. Finally, this review summarizes strategies to minimize risk and promote safe and reliable AI/ML.
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.