ReviewFrontiers in digital health2025
Ethics of AI in healthcare: a scoping review demonstrating applicability of a foundational framework.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of GPT-4-Generated Discharge Letters on Patients' Medical Comprehension: Prospective Crossover Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Ethical considerations of artificial intelligence in dementia research: a review of reviews.The Gerontologist · 2026Review
- PREFER-IT: A transdisciplinary co-created framework to realise inclusive health AI.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Ethics in the Perioperative Setting.AORN journal · 2026Article
- Bias and Fairness Across the Healthcare AI Lifecycle: A Clinician-Oriented Review.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- Development of a deep learning based framework for classification of Indian venomous snakes integrated with explainable artificial intelligence for primary and emergency care providers.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Virtual Organoids (AIVOs).Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Transforming Relational Care Values in AI-Mediated Healthcare: A Text Mining Analysis of Patient Narrative.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Regulating algorithmic tools in reproductive health: ethical and legal challenges.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Multimodal AI fusion: integrating MRI with PET/CT, histopathology, and liquid biopsy for bone tumor diagnosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Acceptance of generative AI-assisted medical decision-making among Chinese physicians and patients and its ethical determinants: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A dialectical lens for AI and medical humanities: advancing responsible augmented humanism in Digital Public Health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Non-death loss and GenAI: ethical reflections on griefbots of the living.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Ethical Horizons in Robotic Rehabilitation: Ensuring Safe AI Use Under the EU AI Act.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being adopted across many industries including healthcare. This has brought forth the development of many new independent ethical frameworks for responsible use of AI within institutions and companies. Risks associated with the application of AI in healthcare have high stakes for patients. Further, the existence of multiple frameworks may exacerbate these risks due to potential differences in interpretation and prioritization in said frameworks. Resolving these risks requires an ethical framework that is both broadly adopted in healthcare settings and applicable to AI. Here, we examined whether a framework consisting of the 4 well-established principles of biomedical ethics (i.e., Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Respect for Autonomy, and Justice) can serve as a foundation for an ethical framework for AI in healthcare. To this end, we conducted a scoping review of 227 peer-reviewed papers using semi-inductive thematic analyses to categorize patient-related ethical issues in healthcare AI under these 4 principles of biomedical ethics. We found that these principles, which are already widely adopted in healthcare settings, were comprehensively and internationally applicable to ethical considerations concerning use of AI in healthcare. The existing four principles of biomedical ethics can provide a foundational ethical framework for applying AI in healthcare, grounding other Responsible AI frameworks, and can act as a basis for AI governance and policy in healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.