Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40657258›Full record

ReviewCurrent epidemiology reports2025

AI-Y: An AI Checklist for Population Ethics Across the Global Context.

Yulin Hswen, John A Naslund, Margaret Hurley, Bart Ragon, Margaret A Handley, Fang Fang, Emily E Haroz, Joyce Nakatumba-Nabende, Alastair van Heerden, Elaine O Nsoesie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current epidemiology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Smart assistive technologies for neurodisorders: A review on AI, IoT, and wearable systems for enhanced patient care.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

10 authors.

Yulin HswenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3203-1322
John A NaslundDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Margaret HurleyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2216-1983
Bart RagonHealth Sciences Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0329-3019
Margaret A HandleyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Fang FangKarolinska Institute, Stockholm, SE Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3310-6456
Emily E HarozCenter for Indigenous Health, Department of International Health; Center for Suicide Prevention, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1833-4925
Joyce Nakatumba-NabendeDepartment of Computer Science, Makerere University, Kampala, UG Uganda.
Alastair van HeerdenDepartment of Paediatrics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, ZA South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-2530-6885
Elaine O NsoesieDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, USA.

Funding

Project 4: Social isolation as a driver of AD/ADRD incidence and disparitiesP01AG082653 · NIA · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Paola Gilsanz, Medellena Maria Glymour · 2024 to 2026
$23.6M
Digital Implementation Support to Achieve Uptake and Integration of Task-Shared Care for Schizophrenia in Primary Care in IndiaR01MH133230 · NIMH · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI Narayana Manjunatha, John A Naslund · 2024 to 2026
$2.1M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG082653NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH133230
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of Review: The goal of this narrative review is to introduce and apply Recent Findings: Recent research highlights a significant disconnect between AI development and ethical implementation, especially in low-resource settings. Studies reveal issues such as homogeneity in the training data, and limited accessibility. Through six global case studies-spanning dementia care in Sweden, environmental forecasting in Europe, suicide prevention in Native American communities, schizophrenia care in India and the U.S., and cervical cancer and tuberculosis diagnosis in Low- and Middle-Income Countries-researchers demonstrate AI's promise in enhancing preparedness diagnosis, screening, and care delivery while also underscoring ethical gaps in accountability, and governance. Summary: Our examination using the AI-Y Checklist found that ethical blind spots are widespread in the development and deployment of AI tools for population health-particularly in areas of model generalizability, accountability, and transparency of AI decision-making. Although AI demonstrates strong potential to enhance disease detection, resource allocation, and preventive care across diverse global settings, most systems evaluated in our six case studies did not meet key ethical criteria such as access, and localized validation and development. The major takeaway is that technical excellence alone is insufficient; ethical alignment is critical to the responsible implementation of AI in public health. The AI-Y Checklist provides a scalable framework to identify risks, guide ethical decision-making, and foster global accountability. For future research, this framework enables standardized evaluation of AI systems, encourages community co-design practices, and supports the creation of policy and governance structures that ensure AI technologies advance health ethics.

Indexed as

AccountabilityAI GovernanceArtificial IntelligenceDigital HealthEthicsPopulation HealthPublic HealthTransparency

Identifiers

PMID40657258
PMCPMC12241292

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.