ReviewThe Gerontologist2026
Ethical considerations of artificial intelligence in dementia research: a review of reviews.
Review in The Gerontologist, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTo examine the ethical considerations related to artificial intelligence technologies in dementia across diagnostic, management, and to synthesize these considerations using existing artificial intelligence and bioethical ethics principles. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsThe review of reviews synthesized evidence from published reviews addressing ethical considerations in published review-level evidence on ethical issues related to artificial intelligence for dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Findings were extracted and narratively synthesized. Ethical issues were mapped to the four UNESCO value domains and four traditional bioethical principles to provide an interpretive framework.
resultsEighteen reviews were included. Ethical concerns were related to algorithmic bias, limited diverse data, privacy, data security, data governance, fairness, and psychosocioeconomic and environmental well-being, and caregiving contexts. Based on UNESCO's four domains, six themes were identified: protection of human rights, technical trustworthiness, respect for human dignity, equity and access, governance, and environmental well-being. Ethical concerns prioritized the respect and protection of human rights and dignity, whereas environmental and ecosystem considerations were under focused. While many categories aligned with the traditional bioethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, some concerns related to environmental well-being and data governance were difficult to classify within this framework. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of embedding ethical principles in individual-level and system-level design implications to support the ethical and sustainable use of artificial intelligence in dementia care. This review will help healthcare professionals understand and address the ethical considerations in various dementia care settings where artificial intelligence is introduced or evaluated.
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.