Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40229745›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2025

Ethical implications related to processing of personal data and artificial intelligence in humanitarian crises: a scoping review.

Tino Kreutzer, James Orbinski, Lora Appel, Aijun An, Jerome Marston, Ella Boone, Patrick Vinck

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Tino KreutzerKobo, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. tino.kreutzer@mcgill.ca.
James OrbinskiDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Temerty School of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Lora AppelFaculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Aijun AnDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Jerome MarstonKobo, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Ella BooneThe Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada.
Patrick VinckKobo, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHumanitarian organizations are rapidly expanding their use of data in the pursuit of operational gains in effectiveness and efficiency. Ethical risks, particularly from artificial intelligence (AI) data processing, are increasingly recognized yet inadequately addressed by current humanitarian data protection guidelines. This study reports on a scoping review that maps the range of ethical issues that have been raised in the academic literature regarding data processing of people affected by humanitarian crises.

methodsWe systematically searched databases to identify peer-reviewed studies published since 2010. Data and findings were standardized, grouping ethical issues into the value categories of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The study protocol followed Arksey and O'Malley's approach and PRISMA reporting guidelines.

resultsWe identified 16,200 unique records and retained 218 relevant studies. Nearly one in three (n = 66) discussed technologies related to AI. Seventeen studies included an author from a lower-middle income country while four included an author from a low-income country. We identified 22 ethical issues which were then grouped along the four ethical value categories of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Slightly over half of included studies (n = 113) identified ethical issues based on real-world examples. The most-cited ethical issue (n = 134) was a concern for privacy in cases where personal or sensitive data might be inadvertently shared with third parties. Aside from AI, the technologies most frequently discussed in these studies included social media, crowdsourcing, and mapping tools.

conclusionsStudies highlight significant concerns that data processing in humanitarian contexts can cause additional harm, may not provide direct benefits, may limit affected populations' autonomy, and can lead to the unfair distribution of scarce resources. The increase in AI tool deployment for humanitarian assistance amplifies these concerns. Urgent development of specific, comprehensive guidelines, training, and auditing methods is required to address these ethical challenges. Moreover, empirical research from low and middle-income countries, disproportionally affected by humanitarian crises, is vital to ensure inclusive and diverse perspectives. This research should focus on the ethical implications of both emerging AI systems, as well as established humanitarian data management practices.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

AltruismArtificial IntelligenceComputer SecurityRelief WorkBeneficenceHumansPersonal AutonomySocial JusticeArtificial intelligence (AI)Bioethical principlesData processingEthical issuesEthical risksHumanitarian dataResource distributionScoping review

Identifiers

PMID40229745
PMCPMC11998222

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.