Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712331›Full record

ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025

Responsible artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review on the use of ethical principles in the development and deployment of artificial intelligence.

Imane Ihaddouchen, Stefan Buijsman, Giorgia Pozzi, Davy van de Sande, Andreas Alois Reis, Reggie Townsend, Jeroen van den Hoven, Diederik Gommers, Michel E van Genderen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

Imane IhaddouchenDepartment of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0008-2876-0200
Stefan BuijsmanFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0004-0681
Giorgia PozziFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8928-5513
Davy van de SandeDepartment of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4484-0995
Andreas Alois ReisDepartment of Research for Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Reggie TownsendSAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
Jeroen van den HovenFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Diederik GommersDepartment of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Michel E van GenderenDepartment of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5668-3435

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: As hospitals increasingly adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to manage rising patient volumes, workforce shortages and healthcare costs, concerns about ethical implementation have become prominent. This systematic review aims to assess how hospital-focused AI literature addresses the WHO's six ethical AI principles-autonomy; well-being and safety; transparency and explainability; responsibility and accountability; inclusiveness and equity; and responsiveness and sustainability. Methods and analysis: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022347871) was conducted by searching Embase, MEDLINE ALL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2023, supplemented by Google Scholar. English-language studies describing AI (machine learning, deep learning, predictive analytics) relevant to inpatient settings and referencing at least one WHO principle were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, extracting data on publication year, country, study design, AI type, technology readiness level and ethical considerations. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results: Of 4770 unique records, 673 were included. Most (83%) originated from high-income countries, with publication volume rising sharply after 2021. Of these, 558 (83%) addressed at least one WHO principle in depth, most frequently inclusiveness and equity (49%), transparency and explainability (45%) and autonomy (42%). Well-being and safety (26%) and responsibility and accountability (29%) were less frequently covered, while responsiveness and sustainability (6%) was rarely explored. Among 44 studies developing AI applications with technology readiness levels 1-6, ethical principles were acknowledged but rarely operationalised. Conclusion: Hospital-based AI research demonstrates increasing attention to ethical principles but lacks comprehensive application, particularly regarding sustainability. High-income countries dominate this discourse, underscoring the need for broader global engagement. To achieve equitable, safe and sustainable AI in clinical practice, clearer operational guidance and more inclusive collaboration is warranted.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID42712331
PMCPMC13492534

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.