ReviewArtificial organs2026
AI-Assisted Decision-Making for End-Stage Organ Failure: Opportunities and Ethical Concerns.
Review in Artificial organs, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond generic principles: a framework for the ethical analysis of artificial intelligence in organ transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI holds significant promise for guiding clinical decisions in end-stage organ failure, where treatment options now include medical management, transplantation, mechanical support devices, and palliative care. This paper discusses current applications of AI in healthcare, emphasizing the complex decision-making necessary for patients with organ failure. It outlines how AI can support risk stratification, patient selection, and outcome prediction, particularly in transplantation practices that increasingly rely on robust data to inform care pathways. By analyzing large datasets from electronic health records, imaging, and patient-reported outcomes, AI can help physicians forecast long-term survival and quality of life, and potentially assist clinicians in modifying treatment strategies before adverse trajectories take hold. There is a need for standardized, high-quality data, rigorous validation, and transparent algorithms to mitigate biases that could exacerbate disparities in care. Ethical considerations demand attention to equitable access, patient privacy, and the preservation of the human element in patient-clinician relationships. Patients generally view AI with cautious optimism, recognizing its potential to augment care but also voicing concerns about data protection and the risk of losing compassionate, personal care. Importantly, AI can help with "alignment," or fitting treatment recommendations to patients' values, and promote sustainable and patient-centered outcomes. Ultimately, the successful integration of AI into daily practice requires multidisciplinary collaboration among developers, clinicians, ethicists, and regulators. Deep stakeholder engagement, continuous algorithmic refinement, and user-friendly design are pivotal to ensuring that AI serves as a practical decision-support tool that complements, rather than replaces, clinical expertise and shared decision-making.
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.