Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41333106›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2025

Ethical and practical challenges of generative AI in healthcare and proposed solutions: a survey.

Tina Tung, Shah Md Nehal Hasnaeen, Xiaopeng Zhao

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Who Is Responsible When AI Gets Cancer Information Wrong? Implications for Patient Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

3 authors.

Tina TungDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States.
Shah Md Nehal HasnaeenBredesen Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States.
Xiaopeng ZhaoDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare, but its adoption introduces significant ethical and practical challenges. Algorithmic bias, ambiguous liability, lack of transparency, and data privacy risks can undermine patient trust and create health disparities, making their resolution critical for responsible AI integration. Objectives: This systematic review analyzes the generative AI landscape in healthcare. Our objectives were to: (1) identify AI applications and their associated ethical and practical challenges; (2) evaluate current data-centric, model-centric, and regulatory solutions; and (3) propose a framework for responsible AI deployment. Methods: Following the PRISMA 2020 statement, we conducted a systematic review of PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published between January 2020 and May 2025. A multi-stage screening process yielded 54 articles, which were analyzed using a thematic narrative synthesis. Results: Our review confirmed AI's growing integration into medical training, research, and clinical practice. Key challenges identified include systemic bias from non-representative data, unresolved legal liability, the "black box" nature of complex models, and significant data privacy risks. Proposed solutions are multifaceted, spanning technical (e.g., explainable AI), procedural (e.g., stakeholder oversight), and regulatory strategies. Discussion: Current solutions are fragmented and face significant implementation barriers. Technical fixes are insufficient without robust governance, clear legal guidelines, and comprehensive professional education. Gaps in global regulatory harmonization and frameworks ill-suited for adaptive AI persist. A multi-layered, socio-technical approach is essential to build trust and ensure the safe, equitable, and ethical deployment of generative AI in healthcare. Conclusions: The review confirmed that generative AI has a growing integration into medical training, research, and clinical practice. Key challenges identified include systemic bias stemming from non-representative data, unresolved legal liability, the "black box" nature of complex models, and significant data privacy risks. These challenges can undermine patient trust and create health disparities. Proposed solutions are multifaceted, spanning technical (such as explainable AI), procedural (like stakeholder oversight), and regulatory strategies.

Indexed as

bias mitigationethical challengesgenerative artificial intelligencehealthcare ethicslarge language modelspractical challengessolution strategiessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41333106
PMCPMC12665710

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.