CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Ethics and Social Impacts of AIEthics in Clinical ResearchMental Health and Patient Involvement

Public governance of medical artificial intelligence research in the UK: an integrated multi-scale model

Open access
McKay, Francis, Williams, Bethany J., Prestwich, Graham, Treanor, Darren, Hallowell, Nina·2022·Research Involvement and Engagement
DOI 10.1186/s40900-022-00357-7PMC PMC9123617
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There is a growing consensus among scholars, national governments, and intergovernmental organisations of the need to involve the public in decision-making around the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in society. Focusing on the UK, this paper asks how that can be achieved for medical AI research, that is, for research involving the training of AI on data from medical research databases. Public governance of medical AI research in the UK is generally achieved in three ways, namely, via lay representation on data access committees, through patient and public involvement groups, and by means of various deliberative democratic projects such as citizens’ juries, citizen panels, citizen assemblies, etc.—what we collectively call “citizen forums”. As we will show, each of these public involvement initiatives have complementary strengths and weaknesses for providing oversight of medical AI research. As they are currently utilized, however, they are unable to realize the full potential of their complementarity due to insufficient information transfer across them. In order to synergistically build on their contributions, we offer here a multi-scale model integrating all three. In doing so we provide a unified public governance model for medical AI research, one that, we argue, could improve the trustworthiness of big data and AI related medical research in the future.

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/s40900-022-00357-7

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]OECD. Artificial Intelligence in Society [Internet]. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2019 [cited 2021 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/artificial-intelligence-in-society_eedfee77-en

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McKay, F., Williams, B. J., Prestwich, G., Treanor, D., & Hallowell, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • St James's University Hospital (GB)
  • Yorkshire & Humber Academic Health Science Network (GB)
Corresponding author
McKay, Francis
ORCID
Venue
Research Involvement and Engagement
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-05-21
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
21-21
ISSN
2056-7529 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40900-022-00357-7
PMC
PMC9123617
OpenAlex
W4281256685
Cited by
16
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Research Involvement and Engagement (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • UKRI (104687)
  • Wellcome Trust (203132)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
public governance, artificial intelligence in healthcare, citizen participation, citizen forums, deliberative democracy, citizen juries, citizen assemblies, patient and public involvement, data access committees, lay representation, multiscale modeling, research oversight, United Kingdom

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