The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 34 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care
Open accessAbstract
Many experts have emphasised that chatbots are not sufficiently mature to be able to technically diagnose patient conditions or replace the judgements of health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has significantly increased the utilisation of health-oriented chatbots, for instance, as a conversational interface to answer questions, recommend care options, check symptoms and complete tasks such as booking appointments. In this paper, we take a proactive approach and consider how the emergence of task-oriented chatbots as partially automated consulting systems can influence clinical practices and expert–client relationships. We suggest the need for new approaches in professional ethics as the large-scale deployment of artificial intelligence may revolutionise professional decision-making and client–expert interaction in healthcare organisations. We argue that the implementation of chatbots amplifies the project of rationality and automation in clinical practice and alters traditional decision-making practices based on epistemic probability and prudence. This article contributes to the discussion on the ethical challenges posed by chatbots from the perspective of healthcare professional ethics.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This conceptual paper argues that the COVID-19-driven uptake of task-oriented health chatbots amplifies the project of rationality and automation in clinical practice, altering decision-making that traditionally rests on epistemic probability and prudence (phronesis). The authors call for new ethico-political approaches in professional ethics, framing chatbots as a matter of systemic change rather than individual or organisational challenge.
Key findings
- The authors argue that chatbots are partially automated, user-facing "gateways" between patient and clinician, and that their rigid, formal models capture only a slice of medical knowledge; expertise instead requires intersubjective circulation of knowledge and criticism.
- They list ten risks/concerns from the HCP perspective, including erosion of practical wisdom in diagnosis, market logic driving care, incompleteness of chatbot assessment (especially in emergencies), increased patient self-care responsibility, trust decay, more patient–physician conflict, new gateways/bottlenecks, increased workload and costs, reduced employee well-being (shift from operator to supervisor), and a "domino effect" pushing patients into automated systems.
- Cited empirical work: a small survey (N = 11) of nursing students on HCP use of Omaolo found it seemed to save work time and that interviewees predicted increased use; Judson et al. estimated the Conversa chatbot "saved employees over 15 000 h of time waiting to be screened" (March–May 2020); Palanica et al. found most physicians believed chatbots could not effectively care for all patient needs or understand/display human emotion; Dennis et al. found perceived agent ability was the primary driver of patient response, with chatbots viewed more positively than human agents.
- Omaolo is described as administering 17 separate symptom assessments in Finnish, Swedish and English, built on Duodecim's EBMEDS logical reasoning; Pasquale's cited Australian study of 82 mobile apps for bipolar disorder found they were generally not in line with practice guidelines or established self-management principles.
Methods
- Design: proactive, theoretical and philosophical ethical reflection; the authors state the paper's main contributions are theoretical and philosophical and that they do not intend to provide empirical evidence for or against chatbots.
- Evidence base: findings from recent empirical studies of health chatbots (e.g., Dennis et al. 2020; Palanica et al. 2019; Judson et al. 2020; Pynnönen et al. 2020; Nordheim et al. 2019) plus ethical literature drawing on Aristotle's phronesis.
- Analysis: conceptual discussion in three parts—health chatbots and their technical capabilities; chatbots, rationality/automation and epistemic probability in professional decision-making; and ethical/social issues for professional ethics, concluding with a list of HCP-perspective risks.
Limitations
- Stated: the authors acknowledge "the difficulty in identifying the nature of systemic change and looking at its complex network-like structure in the functioning of health organisations"; they note their concluding points "are not yet grounded in evidence-based knowledge"; and they state there are currently no established ethical principles to evaluate healthcare chatbots.
- Evident from the text: the paper offers no primary data or systematic review, relying on secondary empirical findings and philosophical argument, so its claims about long-run effects on clinical practice and patient–clinician relationships are prospective rather than demonstrated.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
66 Own interpretation · 29 Not checked yet · 7 No basis given · 3 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“COVID-19 screening is considered an ideal application for chatbots because it is a well-structured process that involves asking patients a series of clearly defined questions and determining a risk score (Dennis et al. 2020).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dennis et al. 2020 source
The Introduction states that COVID-19 screening is an ideal application for chatbots because it is a well-structured process involving clearly defined questions and a risk score. This directly matches the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has significantly increased the utilisation of health-oriented chatbots, for instance, as a conversational interface to answer questions, recommend care options, check symptoms and complete tasks such as booking appointments.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“The emergence of COVID-19 as a global pandemic has significantly advanced the development of telehealth and the utilisation of health-oriented chatbots in the diagnosis and treatment of coronavirus infection (AlgorithmWatch 2020; McGreevey et al. 2020).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites AlgorithmWatch 2020
- Not checked yetcites McGreevey et al. 2020 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
In the paper
“The design principles of most health technologies are based on the idea that technologies should mimic human decision-making capacity.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“These systems are computer programmes that are ‘programmed to try and mimic a human expert’s decision-making ability’ (Fischer and Lam 2016, p. 23).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fischer and Lam 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
In the paper
“So far, there has been scant discussion on how digitalisation, including chatbots, transform medical practices, especially in the context of human capabilities in exercising practical wisdom (Bontemps-Hommen et al. 2019).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bontemps-Hommen et al. 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One of the consequences can be the shift from operator to supervisor, that is, expert work becomes more about monitoring and surveillance than before (Zerilli et al. 2019).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zerilli et al. 2019 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through the rapid deployment of chatbots, the tech industry may gain a new kind of dominance in health care.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result of patient self-diagnoses, physicians may have difficulty convincing patients of their potential preliminary misjudgement.”
- Also stated in: § Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics · hedged
“As a result of self-diagnosis, physicians may have difficulty convincing patients of their potential preliminary, chatbot-derived misdiagnosis.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rapid diagnoses by chatbots can erode diagnostic practice, which requires practical wisdom and collaboration between different specialists as well as close communication with patients.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Diagnostic practice requires practical wisdom and collaboration between different specialists as well as close communication with patients.
- Rests on an assumption: HCP expertise relies on the intersubjective circulation of knowledge, a pool of dynamic knowledge and intersubjective criticism of data, knowledge and processes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is unlikely that consultation chatbots, which are partially automated systems, can replace medical doctors in health care; however, they can drastically change the professional-patient relationship and decision-making processes in terms of diagnosis and treatment.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is unlikely that consultation chatbots, which are partially automated systems, can replace medical doctors in health care; however, they can drastically change the professional-patient relationship and decision-making processes in terms of diagnosis and treatment.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Especially in emergency health situations, they may harm patients as they may not know the full details of the personal factors associated with the patient.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the information that chatbots provide represents very limited expertise.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through chatbots (and their technical functions), we can have only a very limited view of medical knowledge.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably accelerated the development of digital health services within the Finnish healthcare system, and Omaolo ‘may have…potentially prevented unnecessary visits to healthcare facilities’ (Tiirinki et al. 2020, p. 660).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tiirinki et al. 2020 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the limitations and potential incompleteness of healthcare chatbots, they cannot provide a detailed assessment of a patient’s condition.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This creates limitations regarding what ADM, partial ADM or chatbots can do.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In practice, however, clinicians make diagnoses in a more complex manner, which they are rarely able to analyse logically (Banerjee et al. 2009).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Banerjee et al. 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike artificial systems, experienced doctors recognise the fact that diagnoses and prognoses are always marked by varying degrees of uncertainty.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the patient may feel that they are not as connected to the HCP as in the context of face-to-face interaction.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Physicians’ autonomy to diagnose diseases is no end in itself, but patients’ trust in a chatbot about the nature of their disease can impair professionals in their ability to provide appropriate care for patients if they disregard a doctor’s view.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This inability to reliably anticipate the effects of development options undermines the creation of standards for the development of ‘functional’ and ‘ethically and socially sustainable’ chatbots.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If there is a great amount of uncertainty in the functioning of a system, professionals are unlikely to trust the outcomes and predictions of said system.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem, however, is that new technologies and the inconveniences associated with their use, as well as the increasing amount of data provided within them, are in themselves a new burden on health professionals.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, one of the downsides is patients’ overconfidence in the ability of chatbots, which can undermine confidence in physician evaluations.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, a chatbot can also do harm to a patient if it does not know all the details and personal factors associated with the patient.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 29
- Probably not a substantial claim. 71
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This relieving of pressure on contact centres is especially important in the present COVID-19 situation (Dennis et al. 2020, p. 1727), thus making chatbots cost-effective.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dennis et al. 2020 source
The Introduction says COVID-19 created unprecedented demand for information, that chatbots can relieve pressure on contact centers, and that they operate at low cost. The Conclusion says a high-quality COVID-19 screening chatbot will help alleviate the increased load on human-staffed contact centers. The cited claim about relieving pressure is supported; the sentence’s cost-effectiveness conclusion is the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Expertise generally requires the intersubjective circulation of knowledge, that is, a pool of dynamic knowledge and intersubjective criticism of data, knowledge and processes (e.g. Prior 2003; Collins and Evans 2007).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Prior 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “The limits of the lay contribution to medicine” (p. 13), Prior argues that individual experiential knowledge is limited and rarely sufficient for understanding technical medical questions. The discussion of lay expertise (p. 5) also mentions expertise emerging in groups with trained scientists. Neither passage establishes the broader claim that expertise generally requires a dynamic shared pool of knowledge and intersubjective criticism of data, knowledge, and processes. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not checked yetcites Collins and Evans 2007 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“So far, there has been poor adoption of chatbot technologies among physicians, and patients have shown weak adherence to them (Palanica et al. 2019).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Palanica et al. 2019 source
The Background states that health care chatbot technology is usually associated with poor adoption by physicians and poor adherence by patients. This directly supports both parts of the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
In the paper
“For instance, if primary healthcare services are increasingly built on chatbots and other digital solutions, the tech industry will increasingly gain in health care and contribute to the ‘corporate privatization of public functions’ (Suarez-Villa 2012, p. 188).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Suarez-Villa 2012
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“From the emergence of the first chatbot, ELIZA, developed by Joseph Weizenbaum (1966), chatbots have been trying to ‘mimic human behaviour in a text-based conversation’ (Shum et al. 2018, p. 10; Abd-Alrazaq et al. 2020).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To limit face-to-face meetings in health care during the pandemic, chatbots have being used as a conversational interface to answer questions, recommend care options, check symptoms and complete tasks such as booking appointments.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, chatbot platforms seek to automate some aspects of professional decision-making by systematising the traditional analytics of decision-making techniques (Snow 2019).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Snow 2019
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The latter, that is, systems such as chatbots, seem to complement and sometimes even substitute HCP patient consultations (p. 55).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pasquale 2020 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, their key feature is language and speech recognition, that is, natural language processing (NLP), which enables them to understand, to a certain extent, the language of the user (Gentner et al. 2020, p. 2).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gentner et al. 2020
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A complete system also requires a ‘back-up system’ or practices that imply increased costs and the emergence of new problems.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pandemic can accelerate the digitalisation of health care, but not all consequences are necessarily predictable or positive from the perspectives of patients and professionals.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, health consultation chatbots are partially automated proactive decision-making agents that guide the actions of healthcare personnel.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Thus, instead of only re-organising work, we are talking about systemic change (e.g. Simondon 2017), that is, change that pervades all parts of a system, taking into account the interrelationships and interdependencies among these parts.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simondon 2017
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“New technologies may form new gatekeepers of access to specialty care or entirely usurp human doctors in many patient cases.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, decision-making is a carefully articulated mode of reasoning, with its own specific standards, procedures and problems.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ‘rigid’ and formal systems of chatbots, even with the ML bend, are locked in certain a priori models of calculation.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dominos fall when chatbots push patients from traditional clinical face-to-face practice to more complicated automated systems.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the long run, clinical practices can become monotonous: the shift from operator to supervisor, which also decreases the embodied and emotional relationship between HCPs and patients.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implementation of chatbots without the consent of HCPs may reduce HCP motivation and capabilities to control their own work.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More simple solutions can lead to new costs and workload when the usage of new technology creates unexpected problems in practice.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mathematical or statistical probability in medical diagnosis has become one of the principal targets, with the consequence that AI is expected to improve diagnostics in the long run.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to partly automated systems, patient frustration can reach boiling point when patients feel that they must first communicate with chatbots before they can schedule an appointment.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As Lee et al. (2020, p. 339) have pointed out, chatbots ‘can be classified based on their purpose (i.e., assistant or conversation) and mode of communication (i.e., text or voice)’.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee et al. 2020 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As computerised chatbots are characterised by a lack of human presence, which is the reverse of traditional face-to-face interactions with HCPs, they may increase distrust in healthcare services.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This enables people to see them as more trustworthy and non-judgmental.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, more conversational bots, for example, those that strive to help with mental illnesses and conditions, cannot be constructed—at least not easily—using these thought models.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably accelerated the development of digital health services within the Finnish healthcare system, and Omaolo ‘may have…potentially prevented unnecessary visits to healthcare facilities’ (Tiirinki et al. 2020, p. 660).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tiirinki et al. 2020 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Phronesis, prudence or practical wisdom refers to the flexible, interpretive capacity that enables the physician to determine the best course of action when knowledge depends on circumstance (Montgomery 2006).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Montgomery 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“When physicians observe a patient presenting with specific signs and symptoms, they assess the subjective probability of the diagnosis. Such probabilities have been called diagnostic probabilities (Wulff et al. 1986), a form of epistemic probability.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wulff et al. 1986
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice, ‘chatbot expertise’ has to do with, for example, giving a correct answer (provision of accurate and relevant information).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Complex algorithmic systems represent a growing resource of interactive, autonomous and often self-learning (in the ML sense) agency, potentially transforming cooperation between machines and professionals by emphasising the agency of machines (Morley et al. 2019).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morley et al. 2019
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bots also do not get sick or tired, and they can be up and running 24 h per day.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“HCPs and patients lack trust in the ability of chatbots, which may lead to concerns about their clinical care risks, accountability and an increase in the clinical workload rather than a reduction.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a profound socio-digital change, partial ADM presumably transforms healthcare professionals’ work conditions, the skills required for jobs and, therefore, in the long run, the education system and re-arranges embodied and emotional relationships between professionals and customers.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sophisticated AI-based chatbots require a great deal of human resources, for instance, experts of data analytics, whose work also needs to be publicly funded.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Following Heinrichs’ (2007, p. 289) account of phronesis, we emphasise three constituent elements in medical decision-making: (1) showing off experience and knowledge, (2) bending the rules (i.e. adjusting to changing circumstances rather than following strict rules) and (3) taking the middle course (conciliatory view between contradictions and conflicts).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Heinrichs 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One key aspect is that chatbots are regarded as devoid of human features (in the usual sense).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If experts lean on the false ideals of chatbot capability, this can also lead to patient overconfidence and, furthermore, ethical problems.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, chatbots could become a surrogate for nonmedical caregivers.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, chatbots are able to quickly provide patients with information about their health problems based on the symptoms reported on respective platforms.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are risks involved when patients are expected to self-diagnose, such as a misdiagnosis provided by the chatbot or patients potentially lacking an understanding of the diagnosis.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When chatbots are developed by private healthcare companies, they usually follow the market logic, such as profit maximisation, or at the very least, this dimension is dominant.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Their purpose can be divided into two categories: task-oriented (or goal-oriented) and social (Galitsky 2019, p. 3).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Galitsky 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI technologies can perform some narrow tasks or functions better than humans, and their calculation power is faster and memory more reliable.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, occasionally, these technologies are presented, more or less implicitly, as replacements of the human actor on a task, suggesting that they—or their abilities/capabilities—are identifiable with human beings (or their abilities/capabilities).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This persuasion and negotiation may increase the workload of professionals and create new tensions between patients and physicians.”
- Also stated in: § Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics · plain
“This level of persuasion and negotiation increases the workload of professionals and creates new tensions between patients and physicians.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One of the downsides is patients’ overconfidence in the ability of chatbots.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is worth noting that formal models, such as game-theoretical models, do not completely describe reality or the phenomenon in question and its processes; they grasp only a slice of the phenomenon.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One of the key elements of expertise and its recognition is that patients and others can trust the opinions and decisions offered by the expert/professional.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the details of experiencing chatbots and their expertise as trustworthy are a complex matter.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, medical diagnosis and decision-making require ‘prudence’, that is, ‘a mode of reasoning about contingent matters in order to select the best course of action’ (Hariman 2003, p. 5).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hariman 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of them are simple, user-faced and task-oriented (similar to ELIZA).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Based on the previous research on health chatbots, consultation chatbots have been found to play a beneficial role in supporting, motivating and coaching patients and streamlining organisational tasks.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People can trust chatbots if they are seen as ‘experts’ (or as possessing expertise of some kind), while expertise itself requires maintaining this trust or trustworthiness.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The former employs a question–answer style or step-by-step conversation. These chatbots depend on ‘supervised learning, reinforcement learning and an extensive domain-specific knowledge’ (p. 3).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Galitsky 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like falling dominoes, the large-scale deployment of chatbots can push HCPs and patients into novel forms of healthcare delivery, which can affect patients’ access to care and drive some to new provider options.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The latter, namely social chatbots, are not usually task-oriented, unless the ‘sociality’ itself is the task or goal.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Health consultation chatbots
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Task-oriented chatbots follow these models of thought in a precise manner; their functions are easily derived from prior expert processes performed by humans.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experienced doctors, as prudential actors, are capable of working in a challenging triad of messy practice, ethical standards and context-sensitive scientific knowledge.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, they can connect patients to HCPs.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Chatbot users (patients) need to see and experience the bots as ‘providing answers reflecting knowledge, competence, and experience’ (p. 24)—all of which are important to trust.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nordheim et al. 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Encountering the unexpected is an occupational hazard in clinical practice.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Healthcare professionals and new decision-making conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ethical issues within chatbots in health professional work do not simply fall in the domain of individual or organisational challenges; they require policy decisions on how the new tools can be implemented in order to automate decisions based on human assessment.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Technological systems in health care are often highly complex in the sense that experts rarely have a full understanding of system design or functionality.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these kinds of quantitative methods omitted the complex social, ethical and political issues that chatbots bring with them to health care.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, people seem to be more willing to share medical information with them—e.g. people use chatbots to diagnose more intimate conditions, such as STDs.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most cases, it seems that chatbots have had a positive effect in precisely the same tasks performed in other industries (e.g. customer service).”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Palanica et al. noted that it was still not entirely clear whether chatbots were better overall at improving the various clinical health outcomes of patients and why they should be adopted compared with traditional methods of care, that is, information coming from a human physician.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Palanica et al. 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Because chatbots lack the intelligence to accurately assess patients, they cannot provide detailed clarifications regarding patient assessments, are unable to assess emergency health situations or may indirectly harm patients by not knowing all the personal factors associated with specific patients.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Palanica et al. 2019 source
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems that trust in chatbots—when they function as they should—has positive effects on trust in HCPs.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When problems are recognised, they can rarely be traced to a single factor because different agents are involved in the configuration of the system.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Chatbots are more efficient in the sense that they can function 24 h per day and do not tire or fall ill.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is difficult to assess the legitimacy of particular applications and their underlying business interests using concepts drawn from universal AI ethics or traditional professional ethics inherited from bioethics.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This leads to ‘cognitive load’ (Zhou et al. 2017), which affects work memory and, thus, delimits cognitive resources, further increasing the level of distrust and misreading of uncertainties.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhou et al. 2017 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Insufficient consideration regarding the implementation of chatbots in health care can lead to poor professional practices, creating long-term side effects and harm for professionals and their patients.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The many perceived challenges and risks associated with healthcare chatbots would need to be addressed before the technology is widely endorsed by practicing physicians.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Palanica et al. 2019 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“However, machines do not have the human capabilities of prudence and practical wisdom or the flexible, interpretive capacity to correct mistakes and wrong decisions.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pasquale 2020, p. 57 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that new ethico-political approaches are required in professional ethics because chatbots can become entangled with clinical practices in complex ways.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI technologies, especially ML, have increasingly been occupying other industries; thus, these technologies are arguably naturally adapted to the healthcare sector.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While we acknowledge that the benefits of chatbots can be broad, whether they outweigh the potential risks to both patients and physicians has yet to be seen.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the rapid digital leap caused by the Coronavirus pandemic in health care, there are currently no established ethical principles to evaluate healthcare chatbots.”
§ Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care > Chatbots and the pressure on professional ethics
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Diagnostic practice requires practical wisdom and collaboration between different specialists as well as close communication with patients.
“Rapid diagnoses by chatbots can erode diagnostic practice, which requires practical wisdom and collaboration between different specialists as well as close communication with patients.”
The paper relies on this without support.
HCP expertise relies on the intersubjective circulation of knowledge, a pool of dynamic knowledge and intersubjective criticism of data, knowledge and processes.
“HCP expertise relies on the intersubjective circulation of knowledge, that is, a pool of dynamic knowledge and the intersubjective criticism of data, knowledge and processes.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, the integration of AI into healthcare alters traditional decision-making practices based on epistemic probability and prudence (Parviainen, Rantala (2022)) and raises ethical, legal, and medical dilemmas when it comes to making critical decisions about human lives and medical conditions (Shaban-Nejad et al., 2021;Vilaza & McCashin, 2021).”
From Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: a focused review on ChatGPT and responsible research and innovation (2024) · cites this paper as Parviainen, Rantala (2022)
Citations
Cites
, A. (2010) · Cited by 3,771
Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor
Lebovits, H. (2018) · Public Integrity · doi:10.1080/10999922.2018.1511671 · Cited by 3,320
ELIZA — a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine
Weizenbaum, J. (1983) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/357980.357991 · Cited by 2,807
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/mental.7785 · Cited by 2,730 · cited 1×
“UK health authorities have recommended apps, such as Woebot, for those suffering from depression and anxiety (Jesus 2019).”
BackgroundPrinciples alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886 · cited 1×
“In the last decade, medical ethicists have attempted to outline principles and frameworks for the ethical deployment of emerging technologies, especially AI, in health care (Beil et al. 2019; Mittelstadt 2019; Rigby 2019).”
BackgroundCollins, H., & Evans, R. (2007) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001 · Cited by 1,503
(2018) · Cited by 1,167
Hacking, I. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511817557 · Cited by 1,029
On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects
Simondon, G. (2011) · Deleuze Studies · doi:10.3366/dls.2011.0029 · Cited by 909
Evans, R., & Collins, H. M. (2007) · Cited by 894
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Pynnönen, T., K. Rantala, and R. Räsänen. 2020. Kokemuksia Omaolo-palvelusta (Experiences with the Omaolo Service). Bachelor’s thesis. Tampere: Tampere University of Applied Sciences.
- Topol, E.J. 2019. Deep medicine. New York: Basic Books.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review (Preprint)
Laymouna, M., Ma, Y., Lessard, D., Schuster, T., Engler, K., & Lebouché, B. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.56930 · Cited by 302
Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review
Laymouna, M., Ma, Y., Lessard, D., Schuster, T., Engler, K., & Lebouché, B. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/56930 · Cited by 305
To chat or bot to chat: Ethical issues with using chatbots in mental health
Coghlan, S., Leins, K., Sheldrick, S., Cheong, M., Gooding, P., & D'Alfonso, S. (2023) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076231183542 · Cited by 215
Moldt, J.-A., Festl-Wietek, T., Madany Mamlouk, A., Nieselt, K., Fuhl, W., & Herrmann-Werner, A. (2023) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2023.2182659 · Cited by 186
Massey, P. A., Montgomery, C., & Zhang, A. S. (2023) · Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-23-00396 · Cited by 198
Metadata
- Authors
- Parviainen, J., & Rantala, J.
- Affiliations
- Tampere University (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Parviainen, Jaana
- Venue
- Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
- Published
- 2021-09-04
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-71
- ISSN
- 1386-7423 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-8633
- PMC
- PMC8416570
- OpenAlex
- W3197603620
- Semantic Scholar
- 0475fb5c81992147f30999c7014340377cb3d4fb
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 12
- FWCI
- 7.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Medicine Health Care and Philosophy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Ella ja Georg Ehrnroothin Säätiö
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- chatbots, artificial intelligence in healthcare, clinical decision-making, rationality, epistemic probability, prudence, COVID-19 pandemic, task-oriented chatbots
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Referral and Consultation, Pandemics
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
