Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35978652›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022

Limiting medical certainties? Funding challenges for German and comparable public healthcare systems due to AI prediction and how to address them.

Ulrich von Ulmenstein, Max Tretter, David B Ehrlich, Christina Lauppert von Peharnik

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. 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
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ulrich von UlmensteinChair of Public Law, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Max TretterDepartment of Systematic Theology, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen Nuremberg, Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany.
David B EhrlichDepartment of Economics and Management, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Christina Lauppert von PeharnikChair of Public Law, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
University of Giessen · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEKarlsruhe Institute of Technology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current technological and medical advances lend substantial momentum to efforts to attain new medical certainties. Artificial Intelligence can enable unprecedented precision and capabilities in forecasting the health conditions of individuals. But, as we lay out, this novel access to medical information threatens to exacerbate adverse selection in the health insurance market. We conduct an interdisciplinary conceptual analysis to study how this risk might be averted, considering legal, ethical, and economic angles. We ask whether it is viable and effective to ban or limit AI and its medical use as well as to limit medical certainties and find that neither of these limitation-based approaches provides an entirely sufficient resolution. Hence, we argue that this challenge must not be neglected in future discussions regarding medical applications of AI forecasting, that it should be addressed on a structural level and we encourage further research on the topic.

Indexed as

adverse selectionartificial intelligencehealthcare system (HCS)health insurancemedical certainties

Identifiers

PMID35978652
PMCPMC9376350
OpenAlexW4289130608

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.