Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40569539›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2025

It Is Not About AI, It's About Humans. Responsibility Gaps and Medical AI.

A Giubilini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 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

1 author.

A GiubiliniUehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, Littlegate House, 16-17 St Ebbes St, Oxford, OX11PT, United Kingdom. alberto.giubilini@uehiro.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8133-2442

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A lot of the language we use to refer to AI, including in healthcare, uses terminology that originally and literally applies to humans and human relationships. Such terminology includes both non-evaluative terms, like "learning," "memory," or "intelligence," and evaluative terms, like "trust" or "responsibility." In this article I focus on the latter type and the way it is applied specifically to the case of medical AI. Focusing on the discussion of "responsibility gaps" that, according to some, AI generates, I will suggest that such terminology is revealing of the nature of healthcare professional obligations and responsibility prior to and independently of the assessment of the use of AI tools in healthcare. The point I make is generalizable to AI as used and discussed more broadly: the language used to refer to AI often tells more about humans and human relationships than about AI itself and our relationship with it. In healthcare, whatever else AI will allow us to do, it can prompt us to reflect more thoroughly on professional responsibility and professional obligations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelMoral ObligationsSocial ResponsibilityTerminology as TopicHumansAccountabilityAI ethicsMedical AIProfessionalismResponsibility in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID40569539
PMCPMC7618118

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.