ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025
Toward Safe and Ethical Implementation of Health Care Artificial Intelligence: Insights From an Academic Medical Center.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Transparency : Ethical Note Obligations, Documentation Burden, and the Ethical Adoption of AI-Assisted Documentation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Article
- The Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Care: From Imaging to Predictive Analytics.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association · 2026Review
- Navigating the AI revolution: will radiology sink or soar?Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Claims abound that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will permeate virtually every aspect of medicine and transform clinical practice. Simultaneously, concerns about the safety and equity of health care AI have prompted ethical and regulatory scrutiny from multiple oversight bodies. Positioned at the intersection of these perspectives, academic medical centers (AMCs) are charged with navigating the safe and responsible implementation of health care AI. Decisions about the use of AI at AMCs are complicated by uncertainties regarding the risks posed by these technologies and a lack of consensus on best practices for managing these risks. In this article, we highlight several potential harms that may arise in the adoption of health care AI, with a focus on risks to patients, clinicians, and medical practice. In addition, we describe several strategies that AMCs might adopt now to address concerns about the safety and ethical uses of health care AI. Our analysis aims to support AMCs as they seek to balance AI innovation with proactive oversight.
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.