Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39411643›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

The Medicine Revolution Through Artificial Intelligence: Ethical Challenges of Machine Learning Algorithms in Decision-Making.

Marta Marques, Ana Almeida, Helder Pereira

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Cautionary lessons from real-world testing of GPT-4.1 AI for pediatric foreign body aspiration.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Descriptive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Marta MarquesAnesthesiology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, PRT.
Ana AlmeidaAnesthesiology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, PRT.
Helder PereiraSurgery and Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade do Porto, Porto, PRT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and its autonomous learning processes (or machine learning) in medicine has revolutionized the global health landscape, providing faster and more accurate diagnoses, personalization of medical treatment, and efficient management of clinical information. However, this transformation is not without ethical challenges, which require a comprehensive and responsible approach. There are many fields where AI and medicine intersect, such as health education, patient-doctor interface, data management, diagnosis, intervention, and decision-making processes. For some of these fields, there are some guidelines to regulate them. AI has numerous applications in medicine, including medical imaging analysis, diagnosis, predictive analytics for patient outcomes, drug discovery and development, virtual health assistants, and remote patient monitoring. It is also used in robotic surgery, clinical decision support systems, AI-powered chatbots for triage, administrative workflow automation, and treatment recommendations. Despite numerous applications, there are several problems related to the use of AI identified in the literature in general and in medicine in particular. These problems are data privacy and security, bias and discrimination, lack of transparency (Black Box Problem), integration with existing systems, cost and accessibility disparities, risk of overconfidence in AI, technical limitations, accountability for AI errors, algorithmic interpretability, data standardization issues, unemployment, and challenges in clinical validation. Of the various problems already identified, the most worrying are data bias, the black box phenomenon, questions about data privacy, responsibility for decision-making, security issues for the human species, and technological unemployment. There are still several ethical problems associated with the use of AI autonomous learning algorithms, namely epistemic, normative, and comprehensive ethical problems (overarching). Addressing all these issues is crucial to ensure that the use of AI in healthcare is implemented ethically and responsibly, providing benefits to populations without compromising fundamental values. Ongoing dialogue between healthcare providers and the industry, the establishment of ethical guidelines and regulations, and considering not only current ethical dilemmas but also future perspectives are fundamental points for the application of AI to medical practice. The purpose of this review is to discuss the ethical issues of AI algorithms used mainly in data management, diagnosis, intervention, and decision-making processes.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence in medicineethic considerationevidence base medicinemachine learning in medicinemeical ethics

Identifiers

PMID39411643
PMCPMC11473215

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.