ReviewPerspectives in clinical research
Exploring the bioethical implications of using artificial intelligence in writing research proposals.
Review in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential to assist researchers in writing research proposals, by generating hypotheses, identifying literature, and suggesting methods for data collection and analysis. However, the use of AI in research proposal writing raises important bioethical implications, including the unintentional propagation of bias and questions about the role of human expertise and judgment in the research process. This paper explores the ethical implications of using AI in research proposal writing and proposes guidelines for the responsible and ethical use of AI in this context. The paper will review the potential benefits and challenges associated with using AI in research proposal writing, discuss the role of human expertise and judgment, and propose guidelines for promoting transparency and accountability in developing and using AI systems. Ultimately, addressing the bioethical issues related to AI in research proposal writing will require ongoing dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders, as well as a commitment to transparency, accountability, and ethical principles.
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.