ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Ethics in AI Research: Emerging Governance Challenges for Institutional Review Boards in Health Systems.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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 increasingly integrated into health research, creating ethical questions that extend beyond privacy, consent, bias, transparency, accountability, and safety. Existing bioethical principles and AI governance frameworks provide essential foundations but complex health-data ecosystems also raise institutional questions concerning reviewer capability, stewardship, reciprocity, authority, and downstream value. This Perspective proposes a stewardship-centered extension organized around four non-exhaustive governance domains: (1) IRB capability asymmetry; (2) data stewardship and sovereignty; (3) data contribution justice; and (4) authority, ownership, and intellectual property. The framework distinguishes ethical relevance from governance authority. IRBs should not adjudicate contracts, intellectual property allocation, national data policy, or technical matters outside their mandate. Instead, a recognize-assess-refer approach is proposed: IRBs recognize governance issues that may affect participant protection, justice, scientific integrity, or the ethical acceptability of research; assess implications within their mandate and available expertise; and refer matters requiring separate authority or specialist expertise to the appropriate institutional or regulatory body. The article further situates consent within layered governance, distinguishing participant consent, ethical approval, institutional authorization, data-use arrangements, and downstream rights. The framework is conceptual rather than an empirically validated standard and is intended to support coordination across research ethics and institutional governance as AI research becomes increasingly data-intensive, multidisciplinary, commercial, and cross-border.
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.