Cited by 101Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Implementing Ethics in Healthcare AI-Based Applications: A Scoping Review

Goirand, Magali, Austin, Elizabeth, Clay-Williams, Robyn·2021·Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract

A number of Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics frameworks have been published in the last 6 years in response to the growing concerns posed by the adoption of AI in different sectors, including healthcare. While there is a strong culture of medical ethics in healthcare applications, AI-based Healthcare Applications (AIHA) are challenging the existing ethics and regulatory frameworks. This scoping review explores how ethics frameworks have been implemented in AIHA, how these implementations have been evaluated and whether they have been successful. AI specific ethics frameworks in healthcare appear to have a limited adoption and they are mostly used in conjunction with other ethics frameworks. The operationalisation of ethics frameworks is a complex endeavour with challenges at different levels: ethics principles, design, technology, organisational, and regulatory. Strategies identified in this review are proactive, contextual, technological, checklist, organisational and/or evidence-based approaches. While interdisciplinary approaches show promises, how an ethics framework is implemented in an AI-based Healthcare Application is not widely reported, and there is a need for transparency for trustworthy AI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11948-021-00336-3

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Goirand et al note that operationalizing ethical frameworks for AI is challenging, as there is a need for contextualization due to different ethical issues present in different environments.

    “Despite these practical approaches, Goirand et al [98] note that operationalizing ethical frameworks for AI is challenging, as there is a need for contextualization due to different ethical issues present in different environments.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goirand, M., Austin, E., & Clay-Williams, R.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Goirand, Magali
Venue
Science and Engineering Ethics
Published
2021-09-03
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
61-61
ISSN
  • 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5546
OpenAlex
W3197709363
Cited by
101
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 6
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science and Engineering Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
AI ethics framework, artificial intelligence in healthcare, medical ethics, AI regulation, trustworthy AI, transparency, interdisciplinary approach, organizational ethics
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Ethics, Medical, Organizations, Technology

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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