ReviewNPJ digital medicine2025
Reason and responsibility as a path toward ethical AI for (global) public health.
Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in public health: a systematic review on technological efficacy, ethical dilemmas, and governance pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Automated Multitier Tagging of Chinese Online Health Education Resources Using a Large Language Model: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Dignity, properly used, could be a useful construct in AI ethics.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI can enhance public health practice, but it requires careful consideration of ethical implications. We propose a reason-based framework to guide AI co-design and use for public health. AI systems must be developed with public health expertise, lived experience insights, and human accountability to ensure responsible outcomes. We advocate for ethical principles to be embedded throughout the AI lifecycle, thus proactively addressing risks while reinforcing trust in public health practice.
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.