ReviewBioData mining2025
The ethics of data mining in healthcare: challenges, frameworks, and future directions.
Review in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Precision Oral Medicine in Pemphigus Vulgaris: A Conceptual AI Framework for Rituximab Response Prediction.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Applications for Opioid Use Management in Chronic Cancer Pain: A Systematic Scoping Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Building trust and privacy in cross-border health data sharing for European cancer research.Radiology advances · 2026Review
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Digital-Intelligent Precision Health Management: An Integrative Framework for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Medical statistics education in the big data era: focusing on critical thinking and ethical competence.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Towards precision medicine in Tourette syndrome: a perspective on AI-driven predictive modelling and personalised care.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Review
- Ethical Horizons in Robotic Rehabilitation: Ensuring Safe AI Use Under the EU AI Act.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the use of body mass index change as a proxy for anorexia nervosa recovery: a machine learning perspective.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Digital health: current applications, challenges, and future directions for enhancing healthcare quality and safety.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data mining in healthcare offers transformative insights yet surfaces multilayered ethical and governance challenges that extend beyond privacy alone. Privacy and consent concerns remain paramount when handling sensitive medical data, particularly as healthcare organizations increasingly share patient information with large digital platforms. The risks of data breaches and unauthorized access are stark: 725 reportable incidents in 2023 alone exposed more than 133 million patient records, and hacking-related breaches surged by 239% since 2018. Algorithmic bias further threatens equity; models trained on historically prejudiced data can reinforce health disparities across protected groups. Therefore, transparency must span three levels-dataset documentation, model interpretability, and post-deployment audit logging-to make algorithmic reasoning and failures traceable. Security vulnerabilities in the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) and cloud-based health platforms amplify these risks, while corporate data-sharing deals complicate questions of data ownership and patient autonomy. A comprehensive response requires (i) dataset-level artifacts such as "datasheets," (ii) model-cards that disclose fairness metrics, and (iii) continuous logging of predictions and LIME/SHAP explanations for independent audits. Technical safeguards must blend differential privacy (with empirically validated noise budgets), homomorphic encryption for high-value queries, and federated learning to maintain the locality of raw data. Governance frameworks must also mandate routine bias and robust audits and harmonized penalties for non-compliance. Regular reassessments, thorough documentation, and active engagement with clinicians, patients, and regulators are critical to accountability. This paper synthesizes current evidence, from a 2019 European re-identification study demonstrating 99.98% uniqueness with 15 quasi-identifiers to recent clinical audits that trimmed false-negative rates via threshold recalibration, and proposes an integrated set of fairness, privacy, and security controls aligned with SPIRIT-AI, CONSORT-AI, and emerging PROBAST-AI guidelines. Implementing these solutions will help healthcare systems harness the benefits of data mining while safeguarding patient rights and sustaining public trust.
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.