Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42048575›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2026

A Qualitative Exploration of Ethical Aspects of Using AI in Parkinson Disease: Patient Panel Study.

Jamie Linnea Luckhaus, Therese Scott Duncan, Anna Kharko, Anna Clareborn, Maria Hägglund, Charlotte Blease, Sara Riggare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 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. 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

7 authors.

Jamie Linnea LuckhausDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Participatory eHealth and Health Data, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Uppsala University, MTC-huset, Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, 1 tr, Uppsala, Sweden, 46 0769434111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2442-2775
Therese Scott DuncanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Participatory eHealth and Health Data, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Uppsala University, MTC-huset, Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, 1 tr, Uppsala, Sweden, 46 0769434111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4031-1965
Anna KharkoDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Participatory eHealth and Health Data, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Uppsala University, MTC-huset, Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, 1 tr, Uppsala, Sweden, 46 0769434111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0908-6173
Anna ClarebornDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6760-9214
Maria HägglundDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Participatory eHealth and Health Data, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Uppsala University, MTC-huset, Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, 1 tr, Uppsala, Sweden, 46 0769434111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6839-3651
Charlotte Blease *Department of Women's and Children's Health, Participatory eHealth and Health Data, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Uppsala University, MTC-huset, Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, 1 tr, Uppsala, Sweden, 46 0769434111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0205-1165
Sara Riggare *Department of Women's and Children's Health, Participatory eHealth and Health Data, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Uppsala University, MTC-huset, Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, 1 tr, Uppsala, Sweden, 46 0769434111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2256-7310

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As Parkinson disease (PD) rates increase, so does interest in finding new technological solutions for PD management. Despite substantial efforts to explore potential applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in PD management, research from the perspectives of people with PD on AI remains limited. Objective: This study aims to explore the ethical considerations of AI in PD management from the perspective of people with PD. Methods: A qualitative triangulation of 13 interviews and 2 focus groups (FGs) with a panel of expert-by-experience people with PD from 6 European countries was carried out using abductive thematic analysis. The 6 biomedical ethical principles conceptualized by Beauchamp and Childress guided the analysis. Participants varied in diagnosis, disease experiences, and technological backgrounds. A researcher with PD was involved from start to finish, providing valuable insights into data collection and analysis. Results: Although optimistic that AI could enhance autonomy and beneficence through personalized, actionable insights for people with PD and their health care professionals, concerns arose over patient involvement, model accuracy and privacy, ethical injustices, and the psychological impact. Risk prediction, prognosis, and medication response were viewed differently in terms of potential value and ethical considerations, with risk prediction being perceived as the most ethically complex. To uphold autonomy, it was considered important for AI insights to be patient-accessible, and sensitive insights should be communicated by a health care professional who recognizes individual differences in desiring and responding to AI predictions. Conclusions: While people with PD felt AI could personalize (self-)care and increase autonomy, concerns about psychological harm and widening inequalities highlight the importance of ethical safeguards. Our findings underscore the importance of AI integrations that prioritize individual needs, actively engage people with PD in the development, implementation, and interpretation of predictive AI, and establish guidelines to support health care professionals and minimize patient harm. Different forms of implementation and precautions should be taken for risk, progression, and medication response prediction.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligencebiomedical ethical principlesco-designmedical ethicsParkinson diseaseprecision medicinepredictive medicinequalitative studyuser perceptions

Identifiers

PMID42048575
PMCPMC13123883

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.