ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026
Ethics at the Intersection of Intelligent Assistive Technology, Ageing, and the Home Environment: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Technical Performance to Assistive Validity: A Critical Review of Evaluation Approaches for AI-Enabled Assistive Technology.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Intelligent assistive technology (IAT) is being developed to enable safe and autonomous ageing at home and is associated with supporting quality of life. These anticipated benefits must be balanced against potential unintended negative effects. This scoping review aims to identify and summarize the key ethical dimensions and frameworks discussed in the relevant scholarly literature. Furthermore, we examine whether the ethical dimensions identified can be derived from the four principles of bioethics, suggesting that, when properly specified, principlism could serve as a systematic framework for evaluating IAT. Thus, our review has two aims: identifying the ethical dimensions and frameworks currently discussed and investigating whether these frameworks can be structured according to the four principles or if additional principles are necessary. A systematic search across the databases PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Belit, and PhilPapers, plus a manual search identified 535 publications, from which twenty-three studies were included. The results show twenty-one heterogeneous ethical dimensions, with similar matters considered across different categories. The review shows that key expectations and promises of developing and using IAT in this context mostly relate to the possibility of safely ageing at home and reducing healthcare costs. While assigning these ethical dimensions to the four principles of bioethics, it became clear that although all aspects discussed could be subcategorized, some ethical concerns might lose visibility or be inadequately addressed. We, therefore, conclude that the four principles generally provide a sufficient basis for evaluating these technologies.
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.