Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41416297›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Generative Artificial Intelligence in Urology: Navigating the Frontier of Ethical, Legal, and Clinical Challenges.

Waqas Khalil, Mazhar Sheikh, Jawad U Islam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Waqas KhalilUrology, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals, Blackpool, GBR.
Mazhar SheikhUrology, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals, Blackpool, GBR.
Jawad U IslamUrology, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals, Blackpool, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models and image-generation tools, is poised to transform the field of urology. These technologies enable innovative applications in medical education, clinical decision support, patient communication, and surgical planning, extending beyond traditional analytical AI by creating new content, from synthetic clinical notes to simulated surgical environments. In urology, these capabilities translate into automated summarization of complex patient histories, generation of patient-specific three-dimensional anatomical reconstructions, and support for differential diagnosis in conditions such as prostate cancer or renal masses. However, the rapid adoption of generative AI also introduces significant ethical, legal, and clinical challenges. Risks are amplified in urological practice, where sensitive imaging data, biomarker profiles, and diagnostic decision pathways may be vulnerable to privacy breaches, algorithmic bias, or erroneous AI-generated recommendations. Hallucinated outputs, such as incorrect treatment summaries or misinterpreted radiologic features, can directly compromise patient safety if not rigorously validated. This review synthesizes the current landscape of generative AI in urology, critically examines these discipline-specific risks, and proposes a structured framework for responsible integration into clinical workflows. We highlight the need for transparent governance, bias mitigation, prospective validation, and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure that generative AI enhances, rather than undermines, the quality, equity, and safety of urologic care.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceartificial intelligence in medicineartificial intelligence in surgeryendourologyurologyurology department

Identifiers

PMID41416297
PMCPMC12709556

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.