ArticleIDCases2025
Ethical use of AI in infectious diagnostic decision and therapeutic stewardship.
Article in IDCases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: Artificial wisdom and the transience of truth: Ethical and temporal reflections on artificial intelligence-human inquiry into history.World journal of methodology · 2026Article
- Beyond the gut microbe: Rethinking infection, microbiome harmony, and the one-health continuum.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping healthcare, offering transformative potential in infectious diagnostics and antimicrobial stewardship through enhanced accuracy, efficiency, and predictive capabilities. However, its integration into clinical practice raises significant ethical challenges. These include transparency of decision-making, protection of patient privacy, algorithmic fairness, accountability, and the preservation of human oversight. Global and national bodies have developed guidance to address these concerns: the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes autonomy, inclusiveness, and equity; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates adaptive AI as medical devices; the European Union AI Act classifies medical AI as "high-risk"; and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) highlights accountability, data security, and cultural sensitivity. Drawing on these frameworks, this perspective discusses the ethical imperatives of deploying AI responsibly in infectious diagnostic and therapeutic stewardship. Best practices are outlined to ensure that innovation enhances patient trust, safety, and equity while mitigating risks of misuse or bias.
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.