ArticleAI and ethics2026
Ethical considerations for multimodal artificial intelligence in healthcare.
Article in AI and ethics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) is transforming biomedicine by integrating heterogeneous data, e.g., images, speech, behavior, physiological signals, and text, into unified representational spaces. This enables powerful cross-modal inference and data synthesis, with potential gains in diagnostic accuracy, early detection, and patient support. However, these capabilities introduce ethical challenges that exceed existing AI governance frameworks. MMAI can infer sensitive information without patient awareness, and can convert such inferences into new data objects (e.g., images, clinical text) that enter medical records without clear provenance, acquiring the practical status of observed clinical facts. This raises ethical concerns around the infrastructural emedding of inference-based data objects as durable, reusable clinical and research data. The procedures and technical pipelines that govern how such data are classified and integrated into clinical and research infrastructures embed consequential decisions about provenance, attribution, and contestability, often made in advance of adequate governance. In this Perspective, we characterize what distinguishes MMAI-generated data from other forms of algorithmic inference and argue that MMAI is ethically novel in part because it renders cross-modal inferences as recordable data objects, thereby blurring the boundary between observation and generation. We therefore argue for a shift from data-centric protection toward governance of inference and infrastructuring. We propose a four-part agenda: (1) provenance labeling as a prerequisite for accountability; (2) evidence-building to track emergent inference capacities; (3) dynamic consent models responsive to evolving capabilities; and (4) privacy-preserving techniques to limit unjustified or unconsented inferences. These steps aim to support innovation while safeguarding individual rights and expectations.
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.