ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Ethical aspects of artificial intelligence use in neonatal intensive care units: a scoping review.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to map ethical, legal, social, professional, and implementation issues associated with artificial intelligence (AI) in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). A JBI-informed scoping review using the population-concept-context framework was reported according to PRISMA-ScR. Peer-reviewed English-language articles published from 1 January 2016 to 31 May 2026 were eligible. Because the original exports and screening log were unavailable, a documented updated rerun was completed on 13 July 2026 using public PubMed-indexed bibliographic searching, supplementary publisher and bibliographic web searching, and backward and forward citation chaining. Exact strategies and record-level decisions are provided as online resources. The retrieval log contained 78 record captures. After removal of 21 duplicates, 57 unique records were screened; 45 full texts were assessed, 14 were excluded with documented reasons, and 31 sources were included. Eight recurring domains were identified: data governance; bias and fairness; transparency and explainability; human oversight; accountability and surveillance; parental engagement; professional readiness and workflow; and equitable implementation. Empirical evidence was concentrated on parent and nurse perceptions, pain assessment, counseling, and explainability, whereas consent processes, subgroup fairness, liability, and post-deployment safety remained under-studied.
conclusionEthically responsible NICU AI requires secure governance, local and subgroup validation, understandable communication, active clinician oversight, defined accountability, staff and family engagement, and prospective monitoring. Generative AI should remain supervised and should not replace clinician-family communication. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Artificial intelligence is increasingly being developed for neonatal outcome prediction, monitoring, pain assessment, clinical decision support, documentation, and family communication, but relatively few systems have progressed to validated routine NICU use. • The use of AI in neonatal care raises concerns regarding privacy, algorithmic bias, explainability, accountability, human oversight, parental trust, and equitable access. WHAT IS NEW: • This scoping review identifies eight recurring ethical and implementation domains for NICU AI: data governance, fairness, transparency, human oversight, accountability, parental engagement, professional readiness, and equitable implementation. • Current empirical evidence is concentrated on stakeholder perceptions, pain assessment, counseling, and explainability, while consent processes, subgroup fairness, legal responsibility, and post-deployment safety monitoring remain insufficiently studied.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42572076What 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.