Ethical considerations about artificial intelligence for prognostication in intensive care
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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].”
From Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective (2020) · cites this paper as [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
- [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.
- [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)
- PMC
- PMC6904702
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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