Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42387579›Full record

ArticlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2026

Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.

Wenke Liedtke, Martin Langanke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 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.

Wenke LiedtkeFaculty of Theology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. wenke.liedtke@uni-greifswald.de.
Martin LangankeDepartment of Social Work, Protestant University of Applied Sciences Rhineland-Westphalia-Lippe, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence in clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) has fueled expectations of more personalized and effective diagnostics and therapies. By incorporating machine learning methods, AI-CDSS promise enhanced predictive accuracy, improved stratification, and innovative individualized care. However, this technological optimism is accompanied by complex ethical challenges, including issues of explainability, trust, autonomy, and data security. At the core of these debates lies the question of responsibility, which involves both its attribution and diffusion, as well as the underlying normative standards guiding moral action. In the context of healthcare practice, responsibility is further complicated by moral diversity-the coexistence of varying moral values, cultural beliefs, and ethical frameworks among healthcare professionals, patients, and institutional stakeholders. This plurality challenges the establishment of a unified normative standard necessary for ethically sound responsibility attribution. This paper offers an analysis of moral diversity and AI-CDSS as a challenge for responsibility in healthcare environments. Using a relational concept of responsibility the study examines key areas in which moral diversity affects responsibility in AI-mediated decision-making. This includes algorithmic bias, healthcare professional and patient interaction and the role of patients. Through these examples, the paper explains how different normative standards intensify ethical complexity in AI-supported clinical contexts. It argues that greater ethical sensitivity to moral diversity is essential-both in the development of AI-CDSS and in their application within morally value-laden healthcare situations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalMoralsSocial ResponsibilityHumansArtificial intelligenceClinical decision support systemsEthical pluralismMachine learningMoral diversityPatient-healthcare professional relationshipResponsibility

Identifiers

PMID42387579
PMCPMC13321450

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.