ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025
Ethical framework for responsible foundational models in medical imaging.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on the generative AI applications in human medical genetics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Pooled it
- AI-Driven Atrial Fibrillation Management: From Signal to Strategy.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- Language-Guided Segmentation of Medical Images: A Review of Foundation Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Embedded transparency in artificial intelligence: a prerequisite for equity and representation in AI-enabled clinical trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence for Processing Medical Images.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Multimodal Large Language Models in Medical Imaging: Current State and Future Directions.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Barriers and Facilitators to Artificial Intelligence Implementation in Diabetes Management from Healthcare Workers' Perspective: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- The collaborations among healthcare systems, research institutions, and industry on artificial intelligence research and development.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Advances for Managing Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Integrating Imaging and AI Innovations.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of foundational models represents a paradigm shift in medical imaging, offering extraordinary capabilities in disease detection, diagnosis, and treatment planning. These large-scale artificial intelligence systems, trained on extensive multimodal and multi-center datasets, demonstrate remarkable versatility across diverse medical applications. However, their integration into clinical practice presents complex ethical challenges that extend beyond technical performance metrics. This study examines the critical ethical considerations at the intersection of healthcare and artificial intelligence. Patient data privacy remains a fundamental concern, particularly given these models' requirement for extensive training data and their potential to inadvertently memorize sensitive information. Algorithmic bias poses a significant challenge in healthcare, as historical disparities in medical data collection may perpetuate or exacerbate existing healthcare inequities across demographic groups. The complexity of foundational models presents significant challenges regarding transparency and explainability in medical decision-making. We propose a comprehensive ethical framework that addresses these challenges while promoting responsible innovation. This framework emphasizes robust privacy safeguards, systematic bias detection and mitigation strategies, and mechanisms for maintaining meaningful human oversight. By establishing clear guidelines for development and deployment, we aim to harness the transformative potential of foundational models while preserving the fundamental principles of medical ethics and patient-centered care.
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.