Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42894745›Full record

ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026

Ethics in AI Research: Emerging Governance Challenges for Institutional Review Boards in Health Systems.

Krit Pongpirul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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.

Krit PongpirulCenter of Excellence in Preventive and Integrative Medicine (CE-PIM), Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-3818-9761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencedata governancedata sovereigntydata stewardshiphealth dataInstitutional Review Boardsresearch ethicsresponsible AI

Identifiers

PMID42894745
PMCPMC13676878

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.