ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Carbon Reporting Practices in the NHS: Emissions and Omissions Relating to Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is being rolled out across the UK National Health Service (NHS) to improve efficiency; yet, its carbon footprint is largely invisible within mandatory Green Plan reporting. This work shows where NHS carbon reporting omits AI-related emissions and proposes feasible accounting and procurement measures that allow trusts to assess whether AI adoption advances or undermines net zero. A review of NHS sustainability guidance, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs conversion factors, and recent evidence on AI energy use shows that current Scopes 1-3 accounting omits substantial emissions at 3 points. First, a lack of granularity provides averages that can obscure the extreme energy intensity of certain AI workloads. Second, life-cycle emissions from specialized hardware (eg, graphics processing units) are often excluded unless trusts own the equipment, ignoring upstream manufacturing impacts. Third, widespread use of unprocured generative AI tools is unmeasured; extrapolating general practice survey data suggests that ChatGPT queries alone could release ≈ 349t CO₂e per year in primary care. To close these gaps, we propose three potential ways to help reduce these reporting gaps: (1) AI-specific carbon disclosure clauses in vendor contracts, (2) inclusion of cradle-to-grave emission factors for AI hardware in Scope 3 reporting, and (3) lightweight monitoring of external AI traffic (while recognizing potential ethical issues with this). Implementing these measures would give health care leaders a more accurate baseline against which to judge whether AI supports or undermines the NHS net-zero target.
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.