Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42089028›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026

Beyond the algorithm: embedding ethics for trustworthy AI in radiology and oncology.

Mónica Cano Abadía, Melanie Goisauf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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

2 authors.

Mónica Cano AbadíaBBMRI-ERIC, ELSI Services and Research, Graz, Austria.
Melanie GoisaufBBMRI-ERIC, ELSI Services and Research, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology and oncology promises improvements in diagnostic accuracy and efficiency yet introduces complex ethical and societal challenges. Governance efforts frequently rely on high-level principles such as trustworthiness and fairness, which risk becoming ineffective when not grounded in specific contexts. This study presents findings from our work on ethical and societal aspects of AI within the EuCanImage project. Methods: We conducted a multi-method empirical study involving literature reviews, interviews, and workshops with developers, clinicians, and other stakeholders. The study explored how ethical concerns emerge in real-world settings and how they are shaped by institutional, clinical, and sociotechnical dynamics. Results: Findings indicate that ongoing interdisciplinary involvement is essential to address explainability, accountability, bias, and social impact in radiological AI. The literature review identified four guiding dimensions of trustworthy AI (i.e., explainability and interpretability, trust and trustworthiness, responsibility and accountability, and justice and fairness) which remain difficult to operationalize without concrete procedural guidance. Empirical findings highlight that ethical issues cannot be addressed solely as technical problems or abstract principles. Trustworthiness emerged as relational and co-constructed through interactions among very diverse stakeholders. Conclusion: We propose a structured, multi-stakeholder AI development pathway that advances from decontextualized, principle-driven ethics toward embedded, interdisciplinary approaches attentive to clinical realities, power relations, and socio-cultural conditions, by strengthening stakeholder engagement for trustworthy AI in cancer care.

Indexed as

AI ethicsembedded ethicsinterdisciplinarityradiologystakeholder engagementtrustworthy AI

Identifiers

PMID42089028
PMCPMC13136111

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.