ArticleJournal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi2026
Protecting Informational Self-determination in AI-driven Precision Oncology: Privacy, Ethics, and Governance Challenges.
Article in Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming cancer care, from diagnosis and risk prediction to treatment planning and drug development. These advances depend on the large-scale integration of genomic, imaging, and clinical data, intensifying privacy and ethical concerns. This study examines emerging challenges in AI-driven precision oncology and explores strategies for protecting patients' informational self-determination through a narrative ethical and policy analysis informed by recent empirical and technical research. Even data considered de-identified, including molecular and imaging profiles, may enable inference of sensitive attributes through machine-learning analytics. Although many patients support the clinical promise of AI, they express concerns about secondary data use without meaningful consent, commercialization, and security breaches. Privacy violations threaten autonomy, confidentiality, and trust and may exacerbate existing inequities. Current regulatory frameworks, including the General Data Protection Regulation and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, focus primarily on identifiability and the removal of explicit identifiers. However, AI systems generate risks not only through re-identification but also through inferential analytics that derive new privacy-relevant information, such as disease susceptibility or familial risk, from ostensibly anonymized data. Addressing these gaps requires multilayered governance that combines privacy-preserving technologies, dynamic consent, data minimization, transparency, and strengthened legal safeguards to sustain public trust.
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.