Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41868097›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems biology2026

Streamlining IRB review of AI human subjects research (AIHSR): the three-stage framework.

Tamiko Eto, Heather Miller, David Vidal, Mark Lifson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems biology, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Tamiko EtoTechInHSR, Madison, AL, United States.
Heather MillerNorth Star Review Board, Seattle, WA, United States.
David VidalMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Mark LifsonMayo Clinic, Walla Walla, WA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oversight of Artificial Intelligence in Human Subjects Research (AI HSR) presents unique challenges. These challenges arise from both the non-linear and iterative nature of AI development, as well as from the way AI shifts risk from individual research subjects to larger populations affected by AI-driven decisions and data handling. Traditional Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) often struggle to keep pace with these changes, which can lead to gaps in risk assessment and delays in the review process. There is a growing need for transparent, repeatable methods to manage AI risk in healthcare. This paper introduces the Three-Stage Framework, a risk-based oversight model designed to align ethical and regulatory review with an AI project's stage of maturity and potential human impact. By aligning the level and timing of IRB review with the types of risks present at each stage of AI system development, the framework supports appropriate regulatory pathways and documents expectations while maintaining effective protection of human subjects. Through gradual, stage-appropriate documentation, the approach supports responsible and adaptive innovation while preparing AI systems for safe and ethical use across biomedical, social, behavioral, and educational domains. This approach prepares AI systems for safe and ethical use, accelerates compliant research, and helps IRBs and institutions maintain trustworthiness while protecting human subjects.

Indexed as

ai governanceartificial intelligencehuman research protectionsIRB reviewpractical frameworksresearch complianceresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID41868097
PMCPMC13003343

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.