Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39890448›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2025

Ethics in digital phenotyping: considerations regarding Alzheimer's disease, speech and artificial intelligence.

Francesca Rose Dino, Peter Scott Pressman, Kevin Bretonnel Cohen, Veljko Dubljevic, William Jarrold, Peter W Foltz, Matt DeCamp, Mohammad H Mahoor, Lawrence E Hunter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

9 authors.

Francesca Rose DinoDepartment of Neurology, Behavioral Subsection, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9279-5141
Peter Scott PressmanDepartment of Neurology, Behavioral Subsection, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA peter.pressman@cuanschutz.edu.
Kevin Bretonnel CohenSchool of Medicine, Computational Bioscience Program, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Veljko DubljevicPhilosophy and Religious studies, North Carolina State University College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
William JarroldMind and Brain AI Consulting, San Francisco, California, USA.
Peter W FoltzUniversity of Colorado Boulder Institute of Cognitive Science, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Matt DeCampCenter for Bioethics & Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Mohammad H MahoorDepartment of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Denver Daniel Felix Ritchie School of Engineering & Computer Science, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Lawrence E HunterDepartment of Pediatrics, The University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

Computational Speech Analysis in Alzheimer's Disease and Other Neurocognitive Disorders (Supplement)K23AG063900 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI PRESSMAN, PETER SCOTT · 2020 to 2024
$980k
NIA NIH HHS K23 AG063900NIA NIH HHS L30 AG064745
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based digital phenotyping, including computational speech analysis, increasingly allows for the collection of diagnostically relevant information from an ever-expanding number of sources. Such information usually assesses human behaviour, which is a consequence of the nervous system, and so digital phenotyping may be particularly helpful in diagnosing neurological illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease. As illustrated by the use of computational speech analysis of Alzheimer's disease, however, neurological illness also introduces ethical considerations beyond commonly recognised concerns regarding machine learning and data collection in everyday environments. Individuals' decision-making capacity cannot be assumed. Understanding of analytical results will likely be limited even as the personal significance of those results is both highly sensitive and personal. In a traditional clinical evaluation, there is an opportunity to ensure that information is relayed in a way that is highly customised to the individual's ability to understand results and make decisions, and privacy is closely protected. Can any such assurance be offered as digital phenotyping technology continues to advance? AI-supported digital phenotyping offers great promise in neurocognitive disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, but it also poses ethical challenges. We outline some of these risks as well as strategies for risk mitigation.

Indexed as

DementiaEthicsEthics- MedicalEthics- Research

Identifiers

PMID39890448
PMCPMC12310984

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.