Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40209225›Full record

ReviewJMIR cancer2025

Ethical Design of Data-Driven Decision Support Tools for Improving Cancer Care: Embedded Ethics Review of the 4D PICTURE Project.

Marieke Bak, Laura Hartman, Charlotte Graafland, Ida J Korfage, Alena Buyx, Maartje Schermer, 4D PICTURE Consortium

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

7 authors.

Marieke Bak *Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Preclinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0655-0743
Laura Hartman *Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9206-2708
Charlotte GraaflandDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2178-0032
Ida J Korfagesee Acknowledgments, .ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6538-9115
Alena BuyxInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Preclinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5726-7633
Maartje SchermerErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4283-9659
4D PICTURE Consortium *see Acknowledgments, .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oncology patients often face complex choices between treatment regimens with different risk-benefit ratios. The 4D PICTURE (Producing Improved Cancer Outcomes Through User-Centered Research) project aims to support patients, their families, and clinicians with these complex decisions by developing data-driven decision support tools (DSTs) for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma as part of care path redesign using a methodology called MetroMapping. There are myriad ethical issues to consider as the project will create data-driven prognostic models and develop conversation tools using artificial intelligence while including patient perspectives by setting up boards of experiential experts in 8 different countries. This paper aims to review the key ethical challenges related to the design and development of DSTs in oncology. To explore the ethics of DSTs in cancer care, the project adopted the Embedded Ethics approach-embedding ethicists into research teams to sensitize team members to ethical aspects and assist in reflecting on those aspects throughout the project. We conducted what we call an embedded review of the project drawing from key literature on topics related to the different work packages of the 4D PICTURE project, whereas the analysis was an iterative process involving discussions with researchers in the project. Our review identified 13 key ethical challenges related to the development of DSTs and the redesigning of care paths for more personalized cancer care. Several ethical aspects were related to general potential issues of data bias and privacy but prompted specific research questions, for instance, about the inclusion of certain demographic variables in models. Design methodology in the 4D PICTURE project can provide insights related to design justice, a novel consideration in health care DSTs. Ethical points of attention related to health care policy, such as cost-effectiveness, financial sustainability, and environmental impact, were also identified, along with challenges in the research process itself, emphasizing the importance of epistemic justice, the role of embedded ethicists, and psychological safety. This viewpoint highlights ethical aspects previously neglected in the digital health ethics literature and zooms in on real-world challenges in an ongoing project. It underscores the need for researchers and leaders in data-driven medical research projects to address ethical challenges beyond the scientific core of the project. More generally, our tailored review approach provides a model for embedding ethics into large data-driven oncology research projects from the start, which helps ensure that technological innovations are designed and developed in an appropriate and patient-centered manner.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesNeoplasmsEthical ReviewFemaleHumansMaleartificial intelligencebig datadecision support toolsethicsITmedical decision-makingoncologyshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID40209225
PMCPMC12022531

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.