Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40664767›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

A unified ontological and explainable framework for decoding AI risks from news data.

Chuan Chen, Peng Luo, Huilin Zhao, Mengyi Wei, Puzhen Zhang, Zihan Liu, Liqiu Meng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Chuan ChenChair of Cartography and Visual Analytics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Peng LuoChair of Cartography and Visual Analytics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. peng.luo@tum.de.
Huilin ZhaoDepartment of Land Surveying and Geo-Informatics, Faculty of Construction and Environment, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hongkong, China.
Mengyi WeiChair of Cartography and Visual Analytics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Puzhen ZhangChair of Cartography and Visual Analytics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Zihan LiuChair of Cartography and Visual Analytics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Liqiu MengChair of Cartography and Visual Analytics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly permeating various aspects of human life, raising growing concerns about its associated risks. However, existing research on AI risks often remains fragmented-either limited to specific domains or focused solely on ethical guideline development-lacking a comprehensive framework that bridges macro-level typologies and micro-level instances. To address this gap, we propose an ontological risk model that unifies AI risk representation across multiple scales. Based on this model, we construct an enriched AI risk event database by systematically extracting and structuring raw news data. We then apply a suite of visual analytics methods to extract and summarize key characteristics of AI risk events. Finally, by integrating explainable machine learning techniques, we identify potential driving factors underlying different risk attributes. This study provides a novel, quantitative framework for understanding AI risks, offering both structural insights through ontological modeling and mechanistic interpretations by explainable machine learning.

Indexed as

AI ethicsAI riskExplainable machine learningNews dataOntological model

Identifiers

PMID40664767
PMCPMC12264115

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.