ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
A dialectical lens for AI and medical humanities: advancing responsible augmented humanism in Digital Public Health.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Humanistic thought in medical dao: a cross-cultural perspective of global medical humanities.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2026Article
- Cultivating medical humanistic literacy through immersive case-based practical teaching in undergraduate pathophysiology education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) creates profound dialectical tensions between technological empowerment and ethical risk in healthcare, challenging the humanistic core of medicine while offering new tools for equity. This thematic mini-review through a dialectical lens-operationalized as Sinicized Marxist dialectics-to unpack structural contradictions in AI-healthcare integration. Unlike standard bioethics or Digital Public Health (DPH) frameworks alone, this analytical tool reveals systemic power asymmetries and inequities overlooked in existing scholarship. We further integrate the Healthcare 5.0 framework and intersectional AI ethics to move beyond abstract group-based fairness toward actionable equity. The core contribution of this review is the development of the responsible augmented humanism (RAH) framework, a human-centric model operationalized across three dimensions, AI design, medical education, and multi-stakeholder governance. RAH explicitly links humanistic values to DPH principles with measurable indicators for real-world implementation. This mini-review provides a theoretically grounded, evidence-based roadmap for aligning AI innovation with humanistic care and population health equity in the AI era.
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.