Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41989660›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026

Digital bioethics: exploring an emerging field.

Georg Starke, Wolf-Tilo Balke, Lasse Benzinger, Oliver Buchholz, Manuel Burghardt, Lukas J Meier, Emilian Mihailov, Eva Seidlmayer, Robert Ranisch, Frank Ursin and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Georg StarkeInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. georg.starke@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7428-2619
Wolf-Tilo BalkeInstitute for Information Systems, Technical University of Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5443-1215
Lasse BenzingerInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-188X
Oliver BuchholzHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4905-753X
Manuel BurghardtInstitute of Computer Science, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1354-9089
Lukas J MeierInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3316-3928
Emilian MihailovResearch Centre in Applied Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0221-7209
Eva SeidlmayerZB MED-Information Centre for Life Sciences, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7258-0532
Robert RanischFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1676-1694
Frank UrsinInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9378-3811
Effy VayenaHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1303-5467
Sabine SallochInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2987-2684

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The uptake of social science methods by bioethics significantly expanded its methodological spectrum, raising new theoretical, methodological, and practical questions. Recently, we are witnessing another trend, adding advanced data science methods to bioethics' toolkit to aid, for example, in online data analysis, support scholarly writing, and inform clinical ethics. This article explores the emerging field of Digital Bioethics across its dimensions by analysing the tangled relationship between topics and methods, highlighting intersections between Digital Bioethics and Bioethics of the Digital, and advocating for a methods-based definition of the field. The use of advanced data science methods within bioethics must be interpreted in the context of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care. At the same time, it presents unique opportunities and challenges. Defining, and thus demarcating, Digital Bioethics can create support for the new field but also requires navigating trade-offs. To do so, we take four kindred academic fields as points of comparison (Digital Humanities, Experimental Philosophical Bioethics, computational medicine and digitised biology) to analyse what each of them teaches for critically assessing and further developing Digital Bioethics. The article discusses potential pitfalls and concludes with recommendations on how the field can fully develop its potential to promote bioethical research and argument. Furthermore, the article discusses how a critical reflection of the use of AI methods within bioethics itself will also contribute to the ethical oversight of increasingly AI-driven branches of healthcare.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBioethicsData ScienceDigital HealthDigital MediaHumansAdvanced data scienceBioethicsDigital HumanitiesExperimental philosophical bioethicsMethodology

Identifiers

PMID41989660
PMCPMC13633968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.