Cited by 33Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Is it ethical to use prognostic estimates from machine learning to treat psychosis

Open access
Nicole Martinez‐Martin, Laura B. Dunn, Laura Weiss Roberts·2018·AMA Journal of Ethics

Abstract

Machine learning is a method for predicting clinically relevant variables, such as opportunities for early intervention, potential treatment response, prognosis, and health outcomes. This commentary examines the following ethical questions about machine learning in a case of a patient with new onset psychosis: (1) When is clinical innovation ethically acceptable? (2) How should clinicians communicate with patients about the ethical issues raised by a machine learning predictive model?

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/amajethics.2018.804

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because humans and machines have such different capacities, patient expectations of AI capabilities may impact treatment decisions and consent to data sharing.

    “Because humans and machines have such different capacities, patient expectations of AI capabilities may impact treatment decisions and consent to data sharing (23).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hall DE, Prochazka AV, Fink AS. Informed consent for clinical treatment. CMAJ. 2012;184(5):533-540.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martinez‐Martin, N., Dunn, L. B., & Roberts, L. W.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
AMA Journal of Ethics
Published
2018-09-01
Volume
20
Issue
9
Pages
E804-811
ISSN
  • 1937-7010 (ISSN-L)
  • 2376-6980
OpenAlex
W2888957630
Cited by
33
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The AMA Journal of Ethic (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG008953)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
machine learning, psychosis, prognostic model, treatment response prediction, clinical ethics, new-onset psychosis, early intervention, clinician-patient communication
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Morals, Prognosis, Psychotic Disorders, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review