Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42368311›Full record

ReviewGlobal health & medicine2026

Human-in-the-loop reconsidered: Shadow use and reliance management in drug development.

Yusuke Inoue

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health & medicine, 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

1 author.

Yusuke InoueDepartment of Healthcare Ethics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article examines the ethical governance of artificial intelligence (AI) use in drug development through joint principles of good AI practice issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). It argues that the significance of the principles lies in moving beyond AI exceptionalism: AI should neither be uniformly prohibited nor uniformly permitted but assessed in a risk-based manner according to context, purpose, and potential impact across the drug lifecycle. Among the ethical and governance risks associated with AI, this study focuses on two organizational risks that are particularly relevant to implementation. The first is shadow use, in which AI involvement remains insufficiently visible, documented, or reviewed. The second is reliance management. Once AI is integrated into research and regulatory workflows, some degree of reliance is inevitable; however, such reliance must remain conscious, proportionate, reviewable, and supported by meaningful human oversight. Overreliance and deskilling are risks associated with poorly managed reliance. Ethical governance should therefore make AI use visible and reviewable while preserving the practical ability to question, verify, escalate, or set aside AI-assisted outputs.

Indexed as

drug developmenthuman oversightregulatory sciencereliance managementrisk-based governanceshadow use

Identifiers

PMID42368311
PMCPMC13306864

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.