ReviewEuropean journal of clinical investigation2026
Ethical Considerations on Artificial Intelligence, Health and Health Care. All That Glisters Is Not Gold.
Review in European journal of clinical investigation, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is transforming global health care through innovations in deep learning, generative models and agentic AI systems. Traditional reductionist approaches to complex pathophysiological pathways fail to capture the true complexity of disease, motivating the adoption of network medicine (NM), which models biological systems as dynamic, interconnected networks. When combined with AI, NM enables integration of multiomic data and better characterizes disease mechanisms to guide precision therapies. Nevertheless, the rapid diffusion of AI in health care also raises profound ethical, regulatory and social challenges, since only a small fraction of AI tools have achieved routine clinical use, often due to limited generalizability, opaque algorithms and workflow incompatibility.
methodsKey strategies in this scenario are explainable AI (XAI) and counterfactual reasoning, which enhance transparency, accountability and fairness. These methods allow clinicians and regulators to interpret model decisions, identify biases and ensure human oversight in high-stakes contexts. Ethical frameworks such as the European Commission's Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI) operationalize these goals through auditable requirements spanning transparency, fairness, privacy and societal well-being.
resultsYet, challenges persist, including algorithmic bias, data inequity and variable regulatory standards across regions. Machine learning and generative AI hold significant promise for improving diagnostics, drug discovery and population health, but their deployment must be guided by fairness, transparency and human rights principles. Indeed, inadequate governance risks can impact the already existing health inequalities.
conclusionsFor these reasons, the convergence of AI, NM and telemedicine requires a co-evolutionary model which must be rooted in ethical design, rigorous validation and equitable global implementation. Only by aligning technical innovation with sound ethical frameworks and explainability standards will AI become a highly transformative yet trustworthy force in the field of precision and public health.
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.