Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40529644›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Generative AI cybersecurity and resilience.

Petar Radanliev, Omar Santos, Uchenna Daniel Ani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Petar RadanlievDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Omar SantosCisco Systems, RTP, San Jose, NC, United States.
Uchenna Daniel AniSchool of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence marks a critical inflection point in the evolution of machine learning systems, enabling the autonomous synthesis of content across text, image, audio, and biomedical domains. While these capabilities are advancing at pace, their deployment raises profound ethical, security, and privacy concerns that remain inadequately addressed by existing governance mechanisms. This study undertakes a systematic inquiry into these challenges, combining a PRISMA-guided literature review with thematic and quantitative analyses to interrogate the socio-technical implications of generative Artificial Intelligence. The article develops an integrated theoretical framework, grounded in established models of technology adoption, cybersecurity resilience, and normative governance. Structured across five lifecycle stages (design, implementation, monitoring, compliance, and feedback) the framework offers a practical schema for evaluating and guiding responsible AI deployment. The analysis reveals a disconnection between the fast adoption of generative systems and the maturity of institutional safeguards, resulting with new risks from the shadow Artificial Intelligence, and underscoring the need for adaptive, sector-specific governance. This study offers a coherent pathway towards ethically aligned and secure application of Artificial Intelligence in national critical infrastructure.

Indexed as

cybersecuritydata ethicsgenerative artificial intelligencepolicy developmentresponsible AI deploymentshadow AI

Identifiers

PMID40529644
PMCPMC12171450

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.