ArticleJMIR AI2026
Legal and Ethical Challenges in Integrating AI Into Clinical Practice: Qualitative Study of Physicians' Real-World Experiences.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has accelerated; however, physicians continue to face substantial legal, ethical, and regulatory uncertainties when considering AI integration into clinical practice. Although the literature on AI in health care is expanding, there is limited insight into the real-world concerns voiced by clinicians navigating these uncharted territories. Objective: This study aimed to explore the legal and ethical uncertainties raised by Canadian physicians in relation to AI use in clinical care, using actual medicolegal advice requests as a window into their practical concerns. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive thematic analysis of 46 medicolegal advice cases made by physicians to a national medicolegal advisory service between March 2023 and February 2025. The cases were analyzed to identify key themes and patterns in physicians' questions and perceived risks regarding AI tools in clinical contexts. Results: Eight key themes emerged, including the use of AI scribes, data privacy and security, patient consent, data ownership, regulatory uncertainty, medicolegal liability, vendor agreements, and concerns about accuracy and bias. Many of the inquiries focused on administrative and documentation-related AI applications rather than on diagnostic tools, reflecting the current stage of AI integration in everyday clinical workflows. Physicians expressed uncertainty regarding legal responsibility, alignment with privacy laws, and appropriate communication with patients about AI use. Conclusions: This study offers unique insight into frontline physicians' real-time concerns about AI, highlighting the need for clearer regulatory guidance, clinical standards, and legal frameworks to support safe and ethical AI adoption in health care.
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.