ArticleCureus2025
Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of GPT-4-Generated Discharge Letters on Patients' Medical Comprehension: Prospective Crossover Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Artificial intelligence for the detection and diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial lesions: evidence, limitations, and future directions.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
- Informing development of brain cancer therapies within "preclinical trials" using ex vivo patient tumors.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2026Review
- A dialectical lens for AI and medical humanities: advancing responsible augmented humanism in Digital Public Health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Beyond the algorithm: embedding ethics for trustworthy AI in radiology and oncology.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown great promise in becoming an integral part of healthcare, offering advancements in diagnostic accuracy, surgical precision, and personalised patient care in numerous medical specialties, including radiology and surgery. This paper explores the ethical implications of AI in medicine, with emphasis on the four key ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The ethical challenges include concerns about patient consent, data privacy, clinical transparency, and the potential for AI to exacerbate health disparities. This paper explores the need for clear ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks to ensure AI is used in a way that enhances healthcare without compromising ethical standards. As technology continues to advance, it is crucial to balance technological advancement with the fundamental principles of medical ethics to ensure that healthcare is delivered in a safe and compassionate manner.
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.