ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
SPARK: making ethical and societal tensions explicit in AI-supported precision medicine education.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrecision medicine is often framed in terms of technical innovation and clinical promise, while its broader ethical and societal implications receive less attention in medical training. Addressing these issues requires formats that allow participants to explore uncertainty, competing values, and governance challenges. This study examines SPARK, a scenario-based deliberative activity designed to support collective reflection on the systemic and value-laden dimensions of these technologies in educational settings.
methodsWe analysed qualitative and descriptive-quantitative data from two university workshops in Norway involving students in medicine and bioethics. The SPARK activity uses structured scenarios, information cards, and issue prompts to guide small-group discussions of policy and implementation dilemmas related to artificial intelligence (AI)-supported precision medicine. The analysis focused on engagement processes, examining how participants articulated trade-offs, uncertainties, and competing priorities during deliberation.
resultsParticipants initially framed precision medicine primarily in technical and individualised terms. During the activity, discussions expanded to include ethical and societal considerations such as fairness, responsibility, and resource allocation. The deliberative structure enabled participants to articulate trade-offs and negotiate competing priorities while moving between individual and group decision stages. Rather than resolving disagreements, the activity made underlying tensions explicit and supported discussion of competing ethical considerations within a time-limited educational setting.
conclusionsSPARK demonstrates how lightweight deliberative formats can support structured ethical reflection on emerging medical technologies in educational contexts. By making tensions visible and negotiable within group discussion, such formats may complement existing approaches to ethics education and help create space for engagement with the broader implications of AI-supported precision medicine.
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.