ArticleScience and engineering ethics2025
Compliance with Clinical Guidelines and AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: Implications for Ethics and Trust.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 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.
- A five-phase evaluation framework for diagnostic and predictive medical artificial intelligence.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A process model of psychological acceptance in technology-based service innovation: a symbolic interactionism perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is gradually transforming healthcare. However, despite its promised benefits, AI in healthcare also raises a number of ethical, legal and social concerns. Compliance by design (CbD) has been proposed as one way of addressing some of these concerns. In the context of healthcare, CbD efforts could focus on building compliance with existing clinical guidelines (CGs), given that they provide the best practices identified according to evidence-based medicine. In this paper we use the example of AI-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) to theoretically examine whether medical AI tools could be designed to be inherently compliant with CGs, and implication for ethics and trust. We argue that AI-based CDSS systematically complying with CGs when applied to specific patient cases are not desirable, as CGs, despite their usefulness in guiding medical decision-making, are only recommendations on how to diagnose and treat medical conditions. We thus propose a new understanding of CbD for CGs as a sociotechnical program supported by AI that applies to the whole clinical decision-making process rather than just understanding CbD for CGs as a process located only within the AI tool. This implies taking into account emerging knowledge from actual clinical practices to put CGs in perspective, reflexivity from users regarding the information needed for decision-making, as well as a shift in the design culture, from AI as a stand-alone tool to AI as an in-situ service located within particular healthcare settings.
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.