ReviewCureus2025
Integrating Ethical Principles Into the Regulation of AI-Driven Medical Software.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cosmetogenomics unveiled: a systematic review of AI, genomics, and the future of personalized skincare.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Pooled it
- Examining developer perspectives on medical AI regulatory frameworks.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in neurology practice: promise, perils, and a roadmap for responsible integration.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Predicting Pharmacological Treatment Response in Migraine Using AI/ML: A Scoping Review of the Evidence and Future Directions.Pharmacotherapy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, a sharp increase in artificial intelligence (AI)-based software as medical devices has been seen in the United States and the European Union. Despite the huge potential of these devices in alleviating suffering through rapid identification and early intervention, their adoption in clinical practice has remained relatively slow due to ethical questions surrounding their usage. Even though there is no universal framework for the approval of these devices, the guiding principles behind individual regulatory bodies almost stay the same, with some more focused on the technical aspect while others involving the ethical aspects as well. The International Medical Device Regulators Forum devised a SaMD Working Group to outline the essential controls guiding the approval of these devices, but there is a lack of a structured approach for the regulatory approval process. This article outlines the principles of medical ethics, such as autonomy, beneficence, and fair distribution of healthcare sources, and how they relate to the use of AI-based devices. The core regulatory guidelines are then viewed in light of these ethical principles. We recommend that a comprehensive regulatory framework with integration of principles of medical ethics be made public. Though no universally accepted framework is available, regulating quality management, risk assessment, and data privacy would help build trust to promote the adoption of AI in healthcare.
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.