Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42823770›Full record

ArticlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2026

Algorithmic gaslighting in healthcare: mechanisms, harms, and epistemic injustice in context.

Orhan Onder

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

1 author.

Orhan OnderHistory of Medicine and Ethics, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. orhan.onder@marmara.edu.tr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9083-3564

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Algorithmic systems are increasingly woven into healthcare, from triage applications to AI-enabled decision support tools. While such systems promise efficiency and diagnostic accuracy, they also perform a normative function: shaping whose knowledge is treated as credible, which symptoms matter, and how patient testimony is interpreted. This article introduces algorithmic gaslighting to name the patterned dynamic through which testimonial and hermeneutical injustices become recursively stabilized and internalized as patient self-doubt in algorithmically mediated clinical encounters. Building on feminist and disability bioethics accounts of medical gaslighting-where clinicians dismiss or reinterpret patient reports, often in gendered or racialized ways-I extend the analysis to algorithmic contexts. Drawing on Miranda Fricker's theory of epistemic injustice, I show how interlocking sociotechnical mechanisms-data violence, opacity, automated authority, and feedback loops-can displace patient credibility, constrain interpretive resources, and destabilize patient self-trust. These dynamics recalibrate epistemic agency, rendering patients as data objects rather than recognized knowers. To counter such harms, I propose a normative framework aimed at interrupting gaslighting dynamics in algorithmically mediated care, emphasizing rights to contestation, participatory design, critical audits, and shared responsibility. Recognizing algorithmic gaslighting helps safeguard trust, dialogue, and agency in the digital transformation of healthcare.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDelivery of Health CareHumansAI ethicsAI in healthcareEpistemic agencyEpistemic injusticeGaslightingMedical gaslighting

Identifiers

PMID42823770
PMCPMC13629083

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.