Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40909204›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in digital health2025

Biases in AI: acknowledging and addressing the inevitable ethical issues.

Bjørn Hofmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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.

Bjørn HofmannCentre of Medical Ethics, The University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biases in artificial intelligence (AI) systems pose a range of ethical issues. The myriads of biases in AI systems are briefly reviewed and divided in three main categories: input bias, system bias, and application bias. These biases pose a series of basic ethical challenges: injustice, bad output/outcome, loss of autonomy, transformation of basic concepts and values, and erosion of accountability. A review of the many ways to identify, measure, and mitigate these biases reveals commendable efforts to avoid or reduce bias; however, it also highlights the persistence of unresolved biases. Residual and undetected biases present epistemic challenges with substantial ethical implications. The article further investigates whether the general principles, checklists, guidelines, frameworks, or regulations of AI ethics could address the identified ethical issues with bias. Unfortunately, the depth and diversity of these challenges often exceed the capabilities of existing approaches. Consequently, the article suggests that we must acknowledge and accept some residual ethical issues related to biases in AI systems. By utilizing insights from ethics and moral psychology, we can better navigate this landscape. To maximize the benefits and minimize the harms of biases in AI, it is imperative to identify and mitigate existing biases and remain transparent about the consequences of those we cannot eliminate. This necessitates close collaboration between scientists and ethicists.

Indexed as

accountabilityartificial intelligenceautonomybiasethicsmachine learningtransformationtransparency

Identifiers

PMID40909204
PMCPMC12405166

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.