ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Ethical considerations of artificial intelligence in veterinary medicine decision-making.
Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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.
- Artificial intelligence, epistemic authority, and emerging risks in veterinary clinical decision-making.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid growth and development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is leading to a paradigm shift across multiple disciplines of decision-making. Veterinary medicine is an area wherein this proliferation offers profound potential for advancement, but is also ripe with potential ethical dilemmas resulting from the assimilation of AI technology into the decision-making process. While AI can increase accessibility of advanced veterinary care and improve efficiency of clinical and administrative workflow, the successful implementation of it into veterinary decision making requires assessment of key areas. These areas are the accuracy and reliability of AI diagnostic interpretations, the ethical implications of bias in AI algorithms, stewardship of privacy and personal data, and the balance of innovation with legal and professional responsibilities of animal welfare. Results of this review found that AI should aid, not replace, veterinary professional decision-making. To that end, continued research into accuracy and vigilance to mitigate bias is necessary, foundational standards for AI use and education must be enacted, and further research into the effect of AI on clinically ambiguous cases is imperative to safeguard the ethical standards of veterinary 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.