CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 437Digitalization, Law, and RegulationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Legal, regulatory, and ethical frameworks for development of standards in artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous robotic surgery

O'Sullivan, Shane, Nevejans, Nathalie, Allen, Colin, Blyth, Andrew, Leonard, Simon, Pagallo, Ugo, Holzinger, Katharina, Holzinger, Andreas, Sajid, Mohammed Imran, Ashrafian, Hutan·2019·The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
DOI 10.1002/rcs.1968
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: This paper aims to move the debate forward regarding the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous robotic surgery with a particular focus on ethics, regulation and legal aspects (such as civil law, international law, tort law, liability, medical malpractice, privacy and product/device legislation, among other aspects). Methods: We conducted an intensive literature search on current or emerging AI and autonomous technologies (eg, vehicles), military and medical technologies (eg, surgical robots), relevant frameworks and standards, cyber security/safety‐ and legal‐systems worldwide. We provide a discussion on unique challenges for robotic surgery faced by proposals made for AI more generally (eg, Explainable AI) and machine learning more specifically (eg, black box), as well as recommendations for developing and improving relevant frameworks or standards. Conclusion: We classify responsibility into the following: (1) Accountability; (2) Liability; and (3) Culpability. All three aspects were addressed when discussing responsibility for AI and autonomous surgical robots, be these civil or military patients (however, these aspects may require revision in cases where robots become citizens). The component which produces the least clarity is Culpability, since it is unthinkable in the current state of technology. We envision that in the near future a surgical robot can learn and perform routine operative tasks that can then be supervised by a human surgeon. This represents a surgical parallel to autonomously driven vehicles. Here a human remains in the ‘driving seat’ as a ‘doctor‐in‐the‐loop’ thereby safeguarding patients undergoing operations that are supported by surgical machines with autonomous capabilities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rcs.1968

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 58 references

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Garcia P, 2009, Trauma Pod: a semi‐automated telerobotics surgical system, Int J Med Robot, 5
  2. BonaciT YanJ HerronJ et al. "Experimental analysis of cyber security attacks on teleoperated surgical robotics".in preparation to the ACM Transaction on Cyber‐Physical Systems2017.
  3. Holzinger K, 2018, Can we trust machine learning results?, Artificial Intelligence in Safety Critical News, 112, 42
  4. Decker M, 2014, Rethinking Responsibility in Science and Technology, Pisa, 65
  5. World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, 2017, Report of COMEST on robotics ethics
  6. Palmerini E, 2014, D6.2 Guidelines on Regulating Robotics
  7. MichaelK BowmanD JonesML et al.Special issue on social implications of robotics and AI. IEEE Technology and Societyy Magazine.2018.
  8. Veruggio G, 2005, ICRA, 1
  9. Nevejans N, 2017, Traité de droit et d'éthique de la robotique civile (Treatise of Law and Ethics of Civil Robotics), LEH Edition (in French), 646
  10. Graaf MMA, 2017, How People Explain Action (and AIS should too)
  11. Sharif E, 2014, Medical liability in humanitarian missions, The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance
  12. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2011, The Legal Framework for Volunteering in Emergencies
  13. Pugliano J, 2017, The Robots are Coming: A Human's Survival Guide to Profiting in the Age of Automation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–435 of 435

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
O'Sullivan, S., Nevejans, N., Allen, C., Blyth, A., Leonard, S., Pagallo, U., Holzinger, K., Holzinger, A., Sajid, M. I., & Ashrafian, H.
Affiliations
  • Department of Pathology, Faculdade de Medicina Universidade de São Paulo São Paulo Brazil
  • Université d'Artois (FR)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of South Wales (GB)
  • Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • SBA Research (AT)
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-09
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
e1968-e1968
ISSN
  • 1478-5951 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-596X
DOI
10.1002/rcs.1968
OpenAlex
W2899881299
Cited by
437
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 8
FWCI
45.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence, autonomous robotic surgery, surgical robots, AI standards, legal framework, regulatory framework, AI ethics, liability, accountability, culpability, explainable AI, black box problem, medical malpractice, tort law, privacy, artificial intelligence in warfare, autonomous vehicles
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, Medical, Europe, Humans, United States, Computer Security, Medical Errors, Robotic Surgical Procedures

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