ArticleRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2026
[Artificial intelligence and cardiovascular biobanks: Shared technological promise and ethical responsibility].
Article in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in biobanks and cardiovascular tissue banks constitutes a structural transformation with a significant impact on precision medicine, translational research, and the management of biomedical resources. These technologies enable the optimization, storage, and allocation of tissue classification, improve sample traceability, and allow the integrated analysis of large volumes of clinical, histological, and genomic data. However, their adoption introduces ethical, technical, and epistemological challenges that go beyond a purely instrumental perspective. The use of algorithms in clinical contexts poses risks such as excessive automation, the opacity of predictive models, the reproduction of biases, breaches of donor privacy, and the handling of sensitive genomic data. In addition, increasing reliance on automated systems may displace expert judgment and generate a false perception of objectivity. This article analyzes these implications and proposes a framework for the responsible implementation of AI in cardiovascular biobanks, based on principles of equity, transparency, data governance, clinical applicability, and respect for autonomy, emphasizing that their value depends on their ethical and scientific robustness. All of this is aimed at strengthening social trust, scientific quality, and sustainable clinical benefit.
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.