ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2026
Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine in a rapidly digitalizing research environment: ethics and intellectual property considerations.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This editorial explores the intersection between artificial intelligence (AI) and traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM), with a focus on emerging ethical and intellectual property (IP) concerns. Although AI has the potential to improve evidence synthesis, support clinical decision-making, and streamline research processes, its use in TCIM is not without challenges. Issues related to data quality, bias, and the underrepresentation of traditional knowledge systems are of particular importance. The editorial also considers how existing IP frameworks may be poorly suited to protect collectively held traditional knowledge, raising concerns about consent and benefit sharing. Thoughtful governance, greater transparency, and meaningful engagement with knowledge holders will be essential to ensure that AI applications in the context of TCIM are developed ethically.
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.