Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40584023›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025

Evaluating the normative implications of national and international artificial intelligence policies for Sustainable Development Goal 3: good health and well-being.

Francesca Mazzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 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. Review
  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.

Francesca MazziBrunel Law School, Brunel University London, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6423-9147

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformative potential in healthcare, promising advancements in diagnostics, treatment, and patient management, attracting significant investments and policy efforts globally. Effective AI governance, comprising guidelines, policy papers, and regulations, is crucial for its successful integration. Methods: This study evaluates 10 AI policies, namely focusing on 5 international organizations: the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Council of Europe, the G20, and UNESCO, and 5 regional/national entities: Brazil, the United States, the European Union (EU), China, and the United Kingdom, to highlight the implications of AI governance for healthcare. Results: The EU AI Act focuses on risk management and individual protection while fostering innovation aligned with European values. The United Kingdom and the United States adopt a more flexible approach, offering guidelines to stimulate rapid AI integration and innovation without imposing strict regulations. Brazil shows a convergence toward the EU's risk-based approach. Conclusions: The study explores the normative implications of these varied approaches. The EU's stringent regulations may ensure higher safety and ethical standards, potentially setting a global benchmark, but they could also hinder innovation and pose compliance challenges. The United Kingdom's lenient approach may drive faster AI adoption and competitiveness but risks inconsistencies in safety and ethics. The study concludes by offering recommendations for future research.

Indexed as

AI governanceAI in healthcareartificial intelligenceSDG 3sustainability

Identifiers

PMID40584023
PMCPMC12202991

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.