ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Operationalizing AI ethics in medicine-a co-creation workshop study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence Governance in Health Systems: Systematic Review of Frameworks and Integrative Model Proposal.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Observational
- Operationalizing AI ethics in medicine-a co-creation workshop study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA majority of AI ethics frameworks focus on high-level principles but lack actionable guidance. Effectively implementing AI in projects requires the operationalization of AI ethics, translating principles into requirements. This paper proposes a novel method for operationalizing AI ethics through co-creation workshops.
methodsThe study adopted a qualitative, participatory research approach. Stakeholders from the VALIDATE project, a Horizon Europe action developing an AI-based clinical decision support system for stroke patient stratification, were divided into five diverse teams. The workshops aimed to: (i) determine the low-level ethical requirements stakeholders considered essential for the project, and (ii) identify requirements not included in the EU Trustworthy AI Guidelines. The methodology included storytelling, content analysis to identify ethical issues and dilemmas, eliciting quantifiable requirements using a standardized planning language (Planguage), and a procedural feedback process.
resultsThe workshops identified explainability, privacy, model robustness, model validity, epistemic authority, fairness, and transparency as key ethical issues. Participants drafted low-level requirements related to privacy, explainability, transparency, and validity. Six issues (time sensitivity, validity, prevention of harm to patients, patient-inclusive care, quality of life, and lawsuit prevention) could not be mapped to the EU Guidelines. Participants did not draft requirements in relation to the latter issues. Challenges included the diverse interpretations of concepts, such as validity. Participants generally had favorable impressions of the workshops, although they found formulating requirements in Planguage format more challenging than storytelling and topic prioritization.
conclusionsThe workshops elicited concrete, quantifiable, and actionable requirements, which were useful in developing a project-specific ethical framework. The proposed methodology is resource-efficient and requires fewer AI ethics experts than existing methods while remaining compatible with established guidelines. Procedural feedback results suggest that participants and facilitators would benefit from additional training in the use of Planguage. Potential challenges included the impact of power dynamics among participants on discussions, blind spots due to overlooked issues, and the absence of stroke patients among the participants.
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.