Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41162976›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2025

Operationalizing AI ethics in medicine-a co-creation workshop study.

Luis M Lopez-Ramos, Gabriele Pluktaite, Cathrine K T Bui, Julia Amann, Tamarinde Haven, Vince I Madai, VALIDATE Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Luis M Lopez-RamosDepartment of Holistic Systems, Simula Metropolitan Center for Digital Engineering, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8072-3994
Gabriele PluktaiteQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1844-9073
Cathrine K T BuiQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Julia AmannStrategy & Innovation, Careum Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2155-5286
Tamarinde HavenDepartment of Methods and Statistics, School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4702-2472
Vince I MadaiQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. vince_istvan.madai@bih-charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8552-6954
VALIDATE Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalEthics, MedicalEducationEuropeHumansPrivacyQualitative ResearchStakeholder ParticipationStrokeAI ethicsCo-creationContent analysisEthical principles

Identifiers

PMID41162976
PMCPMC12573952

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.