Cargando…
Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are transforming medicine and healthcare. Scholars and practitioners have debated the philosophical, ethical, legal, and regulatory implications of medical AI, and empirical research on stakeholders’ knowledge, attitude, and practices has started...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10331228/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37434728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552076231186064 |
_version_ | 1785070216260091904 |
---|---|
author | Tang, Lu Li, Jinxu Fantus, Sophia |
author_facet | Tang, Lu Li, Jinxu Fantus, Sophia |
author_sort | Tang, Lu |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are transforming medicine and healthcare. Scholars and practitioners have debated the philosophical, ethical, legal, and regulatory implications of medical AI, and empirical research on stakeholders’ knowledge, attitude, and practices has started to emerge. This study is a systematic review of published empirical studies of medical AI ethics with the goal of mapping the main approaches, findings, and limitations of scholarship to inform future practice considerations. METHODS: We searched seven databases for published peer-reviewed empirical studies on medical AI ethics and evaluated them in terms of types of technologies studied, geographic locations, stakeholders involved, research methods used, ethical principles studied, and major findings. FINDINGS: Thirty-six studies were included (published 2013-2022). They typically belonged to one of the three topics: exploratory studies of stakeholder knowledge and attitude toward medical AI, theory-building studies testing hypotheses regarding factors contributing to stakeholders’ acceptance of medical AI, and studies identifying and correcting bias in medical AI. INTERPRETATION: There is a disconnect between high-level ethical principles and guidelines developed by ethicists and empirical research on the topic and a need to embed ethicists in tandem with AI developers, clinicians, patients, and scholars of innovation and technology adoption in studying medical AI ethics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10331228 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103312282023-07-11 Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies Tang, Lu Li, Jinxu Fantus, Sophia Digit Health Review Article BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are transforming medicine and healthcare. Scholars and practitioners have debated the philosophical, ethical, legal, and regulatory implications of medical AI, and empirical research on stakeholders’ knowledge, attitude, and practices has started to emerge. This study is a systematic review of published empirical studies of medical AI ethics with the goal of mapping the main approaches, findings, and limitations of scholarship to inform future practice considerations. METHODS: We searched seven databases for published peer-reviewed empirical studies on medical AI ethics and evaluated them in terms of types of technologies studied, geographic locations, stakeholders involved, research methods used, ethical principles studied, and major findings. FINDINGS: Thirty-six studies were included (published 2013-2022). They typically belonged to one of the three topics: exploratory studies of stakeholder knowledge and attitude toward medical AI, theory-building studies testing hypotheses regarding factors contributing to stakeholders’ acceptance of medical AI, and studies identifying and correcting bias in medical AI. INTERPRETATION: There is a disconnect between high-level ethical principles and guidelines developed by ethicists and empirical research on the topic and a need to embed ethicists in tandem with AI developers, clinicians, patients, and scholars of innovation and technology adoption in studying medical AI ethics. SAGE Publications 2023-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10331228/ /pubmed/37434728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552076231186064 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Review Article Tang, Lu Li, Jinxu Fantus, Sophia Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies |
title | Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies |
title_full | Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies |
title_fullStr | Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies |
title_short | Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies |
title_sort | medical artificial intelligence ethics: a systematic review of empirical studies |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10331228/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37434728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552076231186064 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tanglu medicalartificialintelligenceethicsasystematicreviewofempiricalstudies AT lijinxu medicalartificialintelligenceethicsasystematicreviewofempiricalstudies AT fantussophia medicalartificialintelligenceethicsasystematicreviewofempiricalstudies |