ReviewFrontiers in big data2024
Establishing and evaluating trustworthy AI: overview and research challenges.
Review in Frontiers in big data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A six-level clinical autonomy framework for artificial intelligence in dentistry.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Multistakeholder fairness in tourism: what can algorithms learn from tourism management?Frontiers in big data · 2025Review
- Adopting AI in medical ethics review: A configurational fsQCA study of practitioners' willingness.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (re-)shape modern life, driving innovation in a wide range of sectors. However, some AI systems have yielded unexpected or undesirable outcomes or have been used in questionable manners. As a result, there has been a surge in public and academic discussions about aspects that AI systems must fulfill to be considered trustworthy. In this paper, we synthesize existing conceptualizations of trustworthy AI along six requirements: (1) human agency and oversight, (2) fairness and non-discrimination, (3) transparency and explainability, (4) robustness and accuracy, (5) privacy and security, and (6) accountability. For each one, we provide a definition, describe how it can be established and evaluated, and discuss requirement-specific research challenges. Finally, we conclude this analysis by identifying overarching research challenges across the requirements with respect to (1) interdisciplinary research, (2) conceptual clarity, (3) context-dependency, (4) dynamics in evolving systems, and (5) investigations in real-world contexts. Thus, this paper synthesizes and consolidates a wide-ranging and active discussion currently taking place in various academic sub-communities and public forums. It aims to serve as a reference for a broad audience and as a basis for future research directions.
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.