ArticleFuture healthcare journal2024
Accidental injustice: Healthcare AI legal responsibility must be prospectively planned prior to its adoption.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient Concerns Regarding Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis Based on Social Ecological Theory.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Expanding the Taxonomy of Ethical Issues in Surgical Innovation.Bioethics · 2026Article
- [Application and progress of artificial intelligence agents in drug development].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: Support or Additional Burden on Physicians' Healthcare Work?-A Qualitative Study.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Generative AI models: the next anaesthetic agent?British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in the NHS: Moving from ideation to implementation.Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article contributes to the ongoing debate about legal liability and responsibility for patient harm in scenarios where artificial intelligence (AI) is used in healthcare.We note that due to the structure of negligence liability in England and Wales, it is likely that clinicians would be held solely negligent for patient harms arising from software defects, even though AI algorithms will share the decision-making space with clinicians.Drawing on previous research, we argue that the traditional model of negligence liability for clinical malpractice cannot be relied upon to offer justice for clinicians and patients. There is a pressing need for law reform to consider the use of risk pooling, alongside detailed professional guidance for the use of AI in healthcare spaces.
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.