Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41604668›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Ethical Knowledge, Challenges, and Institutional Strategies Among Medical AI Developers and Researchers: Focus Group Study.

Sophia Fantus, Jinxu Li, Tianci Wang, Lu Tang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Sophia FantusSchool of Social Work, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8800-2697
Jinxu LiDepartment of Communication & Journalism, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7978-2129
Tianci WangBurnett School of Medicine, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6203-2310
Lu TangDepartment of Communication & Journalism, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1850-1511

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in clinical decision-making and preventive care, it is urgent to address ethical concerns such as bias, privacy, and transparency to protect clinician and patient populations. Although prior research has examined the perspectives of medical AI stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, and health system leaders, far less is known about how medical AI developers and researchers understand and engage with ethical challenges as they develop AI tools. This gap is consequential because developers' ethical awareness, decision-making, and institutional environments influence how AI tools are conceptualized and deployed in practice. Thus, it is essential to understand how developers perceive these issues and what supports they identify as necessary for ethical AI development.

objectiveThe objectives of the study were twofold: (1) to examine medical AI developers' and researchers' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences with AI ethics; and (2) to identify recommendations to enhance and strengthen interpersonal and institutional ethics-focused training and support.

methodsWe conducted 2 semistructured focus groups (60-90 minutes each) in 2024 with 13 AI developers and researchers affiliated with 5 US-based academic institutions. Participants' work spanned a wide variety of medical AI applications, including Alzheimer disease prediction, clinical imaging, electronic health records analysis, digital health, counseling and behavioral health, and genotype-phenotype modeling. Focus groups were conducted via Microsoft Teams, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. We applied conventional qualitative content analysis to inductively identify emerging concepts, categories, and themes. Coding was performed independently by 3 researchers, with consensus reached through iterative team meetings.

resultsThe analysis identified four key themes: (1) AI ethics knowledge acquisition: participants reported learning about ethics informally through peer-reviewed literature, reviewer feedback, social media, and mentorship rather than through structured training; (2) ethical encounters: participants described recurring ethical challenges related to data bias, patient privacy, generative AI use, commercialization pressures, and a tendency for research environments to prioritize model accuracy over ethical reflection; (3) reflections on ethical implications: participants expressed concern about downstream effects on patient care and clinician autonomy, and model generalizability, noting that rapid technological innovation outpaces regulatory and evaluative processes; and (4) strategies to mitigate ethical concerns: recommendations included clearer institutional guidelines, ethics checklists, interdisciplinary collaboration, multi-institutional data sharing, enhanced institutional review board support, and the inclusion of bioethicists as members of the AI research team.

conclusionsMedical AI developers and researchers recognize significant ethical challenges in their work but lack structured training, resources, and institutional mechanisms to address them. Findings of this study underscore the need for institutions to consider embedding ethics into research processes through practical tools, mentorship, and interdisciplinary partnerships. Strengthening these supports is essential to preparing the next generation of developers to design and deploy ethical AI in health care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceResearch PersonnelFocus GroupsHumansAIAI ethicsartificial intelligenceethicsfocus groupmedical

Identifiers

PMID41604668
PMCPMC12895146

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.