Cited by 64Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in cancer detectionEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The ethical challenges of artificial intelligence‐driven digital pathology

Open access
McKay, Francis, Williams, Bethany J, Prestwich, Graham, Bansal, Daljeet, Hallowell, Nina, Treanor, Darren·2022·The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research

Abstract

Digital pathology – the digitalisation of clinical histopathology services through the scanning and storage of pathology slides – has opened up new possibilities for health care in recent years, particularly in the opportunities it brings for artificial intelligence (AI)‐driven research. Recognising, however, that there is little scholarly debate on the ethics of digital pathology when used for AI research, this paper summarises what it sees as four key ethical issues to consider when deploying AI infrastructures in pathology, namely, privacy, choice, equity, and trust. The themes are inspired from the authors' experience grappling with the challenge of deploying an ethical digital pathology infrastructure to support AI research as part of the National Pathology Imaging Cooperative (NPIC), a collaborative of universities, hospital trusts, and industry partners largely located across the North of England. Though focusing on the UK case, internationally, few pathology departments have gone fully digital, and so the themes developed here offer a heuristic for ethical reflection for other departments currently making a similar transition or planning to do so in the future. We conclude by promoting the need for robust public governance mechanisms in AI‐driven digital pathology.

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 · 10.1002/cjp2.263

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • AI offers brands unparalleled capabilities to amplify and personalize their narratives, but it also tests the fundamental tenets of branding - consistency, authenticity, trust.

    “AI offers brands unparalleled capabilities to amplify and personalize their narratives, but it also tests the fundamental tenets of branding -consistency, authenticity, trust (Naveeenkumar et al., 2024;McKay et al., 2022;More & Unnikrishnan, 2024;Pattanayak, 2022).”

    From Surveillance Capitalism, Consumer Subjectivity and Marketing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as McKay et al., 2022

    The Trust section (page unavailable) discusses how AI-driven digital pathology raises questions of public trust, including mistrust of commercial involvement. It does not address brands, personalized narratives, or branding principles such as consistency and authenticity; its discussion of trust is in a healthcare setting. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [21]Greiner F, Nolte S, Waldmann A, et al. Collection and processing of personal data to evaluate cancer screening programmes – results of a survey of the German population in light of the bill ‘early detection of cancer and cancer registries’. Gesundheitswesen 2013; 75: 751– 753. 24142370
  2. [36]BCS – The Chartered Institute for IT The Public Don't Trust Computer Algorithms to Make Decisions About Them, Survey Finds. 2020. [Accessed 26 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.bcs.org/more/about‐us/press‐office/press‐releases/the‐public‐dont‐trust‐computer‐algorithms‐to‐make‐decisions‐about‐them‐survey‐finds/
  3. [45]European Commission, Directorate‐General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Publications Office, 2019. 10.2759/177365 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McKay, F., Williams, B. J., Prestwich, G., Bansal, D., Hallowell, N., & Treanor, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Yorkshire & Humber Academic Health Science Network (GB)
  • Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
McKay, Francis
Venue
The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-02-17
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
209-216
ISSN
2056-4538 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4213180289
Cited by
63
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Pathology Clinical Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • UK Research and Innovation (104687)
  • Wellcome Trust (203132)
  • Li Ka Shing Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
digital pathology, artificial intelligence, AI ethics, privacy, informed consent, equity, trust
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Humans

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