ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
AI ethics in Indian healthcare: a scoping review of national and international guidelines on privacy, data protection, and security.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically map and critically analyze the provisions within Indian national frameworks (Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, ICMR guidelines) and key international ethical AI guidelines that address privacy and data security for AI-driven diagnostic tools, specifically within the Indian public health context.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR framework. A comprehensive search of government publications, intergovernmental organization reports, and academic literature was performed to identify relevant national and international guidelines. Data were charted and synthesized thematically.
resultsThe analysis reveals a fragmented Indian governance landscape, characterized by a principles-based national AI strategy (#AIforAll), sector-specific ethical guidelines (ICMR), and a new, general-purpose data protection law (DPDP Act). While the DPDP Act establishes foundational data fiduciary obligations, its broad exemptions for public health and research create ambiguities for data-intensive AI. International frameworks serve as comparative reference points; the EU AI Act, in particular, offers a contrasting granular, risk-based regulatory model. Key tensions emerge between the universalist principles of international guidelines and the need for a “situated ethics” approach that addresses India’s unique challenges, including the digital divide, data quality issues, and the difficulty of operationalizing meaningful consent.
conclusionExisting guidelines provide a foundational but incomplete framework for the safe and ethical deployment of AI diagnostics in Indian public health. There is a critical need to bridge the gap between high-level principles and on-the-ground implementation. This requires developing sector-specific regulations under the DPDP Act, establishing robust standards for data and algorithmic audits, and fostering a cooperative federalism approach that harmonizes international standards with the socio-technical and constitutional realities of India.
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.