ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Beyond the algorithm: embedding ethics for trustworthy AI in radiology and oncology.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.