Cited by 124Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIMachine Learning in Healthcare

Ethical considerations about artificial intelligence for prognostication in intensive care

Open access
Beil, Michael, Proft, Ingo, van Heerden, Daniel, Sviri, Sigal, van Heerden, Peter Vernon·2019·Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Abstract

Background: Prognosticating the course of diseases to inform decision-making is a key component of intensive care medicine. For several applications in medicine, new methods from the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have already outperformed conventional prediction models. Due to their technical characteristics, these methods will present new ethical challenges to the intensivist. Results: In addition to the standards of data stewardship in medicine, the selection of datasets and algorithms to create AI prognostication models must involve extensive scrutiny to avoid biases and, consequently, injustice against individuals or groups of patients. Assessment of these models for compliance with the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence should also include quantification of predictive uncertainty. Respect for patients’ autonomy during decision-making requires transparency of the data processing by AI models to explain the predictions derived from these models. Moreover, a system of continuous oversight can help to maintain public trust in this technology. Based on these considerations as well as recent guidelines, we propose a pathway to an ethical implementation of AI-based prognostication. It includes a checklist for new AI models that deals with medical and technical topics as well as patient- and system-centered issues. Conclusion: AI models for prognostication will become valuable tools in intensive care. However, they require technical refinement and a careful implementation according to the standards of medical ethics.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40635-019-0286-6

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Clinicians can reduce the risk of eliciting false hope or creating false despair and can flag potentially inappropriate interventions using their clinical judgment.

    “As such, clinicians can not only reduce the risk of eliciting false hope or creating false despair but can also flag potentially inappropriate interventions using their clinical judgment [43].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 124

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [27]Gomez E (2018) Assessing the impact of machine intelligence on human behaviour. Proceedings of 1st HUMAINT workshop, Barcelona, Spain, March 5-6, 2018. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  2. [51]Whittlestone J, Alexandrova A, Nyrup, R, Cave, S (2019) The role and limits of principles in AI ethics. Proceedings 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.

Authors
Beil, M., Proft, I., van Heerden, D., Sviri, S., & van Heerden, P. V.
Affiliations
  • Vinzenz Pallotti University (DE)
  • Hadassah Medical Center (IL)
Corresponding author
Beil, Michael
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
Published
2019-12
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
70-70
ISSN
2197-425X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996473744
Cited by
124
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine Experimental (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence, outcome prediction, intensive care, medical ethics, algorithmic bias, forecast uncertainty, patient autonomy, transparency, data stewardship, clinical decision-making

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