Scoping Review Shows the Dynamics and Complexities Inherent to the Notion of “Responsibility” in Artificial Intelligence within the Healthcare Context

IF 1.3 Q3 ETHICS Asian Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1007/s41649-024-00292-7
Sarah Bouhouita-Guermech, Hazar Haidar
{"title":"Scoping Review Shows the Dynamics and Complexities Inherent to the Notion of “Responsibility” in Artificial Intelligence within the Healthcare Context","authors":"Sarah Bouhouita-Guermech,&nbsp;Hazar Haidar","doi":"10.1007/s41649-024-00292-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare presents a host of ethical, legal, social, and political challenges involving various stakeholders. These challenges prompt various studies proposing frameworks and guidelines to tackle these issues, emphasizing distinct phases of AI development, deployment, and oversight. As a result, the notion of responsible AI has become widespread, incorporating ethical principles such as transparency, fairness, responsibility, and privacy. This paper explores the existing literature on AI use in healthcare to examine how it addresses, defines, and discusses the concept of responsibility. We conducted a scoping review of literature related to AI responsibility in healthcare, searching databases and reference lists between January 2017 and January 2022 for terms related to “responsibility” and “AI in healthcare”, and their derivatives. Following screening, 136 articles were included. Data were grouped into four thematic categories: (1) the variety of terminology used to describe and address responsibility; (2) principles and concepts associated with responsibility; (3) stakeholders’ responsibilities in AI clinical development, use, and deployment; and (4) recommendations for addressing responsibility concerns. The results show the lack of a clear definition of AI responsibility in healthcare and highlight the importance of ensuring responsible development and implementation of AI in healthcare. Further research is necessary to clarify this notion to contribute to developing frameworks regarding the type of responsibility (ethical/moral/professional, legal, and causal) of various stakeholders involved in the AI lifecycle.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-024-00292-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare presents a host of ethical, legal, social, and political challenges involving various stakeholders. These challenges prompt various studies proposing frameworks and guidelines to tackle these issues, emphasizing distinct phases of AI development, deployment, and oversight. As a result, the notion of responsible AI has become widespread, incorporating ethical principles such as transparency, fairness, responsibility, and privacy. This paper explores the existing literature on AI use in healthcare to examine how it addresses, defines, and discusses the concept of responsibility. We conducted a scoping review of literature related to AI responsibility in healthcare, searching databases and reference lists between January 2017 and January 2022 for terms related to “responsibility” and “AI in healthcare”, and their derivatives. Following screening, 136 articles were included. Data were grouped into four thematic categories: (1) the variety of terminology used to describe and address responsibility; (2) principles and concepts associated with responsibility; (3) stakeholders’ responsibilities in AI clinical development, use, and deployment; and (4) recommendations for addressing responsibility concerns. The results show the lack of a clear definition of AI responsibility in healthcare and highlight the importance of ensuring responsible development and implementation of AI in healthcare. Further research is necessary to clarify this notion to contribute to developing frameworks regarding the type of responsibility (ethical/moral/professional, legal, and causal) of various stakeholders involved in the AI lifecycle.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
范围界定审查显示了医疗保健领域人工智能 "责任 "概念的动态性和复杂性
人工智能(AI)日益融入医疗保健领域,带来了一系列涉及各利益相关方的伦理、法律、社会和政治挑战。这些挑战促使各种研究提出了解决这些问题的框架和指南,强调人工智能开发、部署和监督的不同阶段。因此,"负责任的人工智能 "这一概念已广为流传,其中包含了透明、公平、责任和隐私等伦理原则。本文探讨了有关人工智能在医疗保健领域应用的现有文献,以研究其如何处理、定义和讨论责任概念。我们对与医疗保健中的人工智能责任相关的文献进行了一次范围审查,在 2017 年 1 月至 2022 年 1 月期间检索了数据库和参考文献列表中与 "责任 "和 "医疗保健中的人工智能 "及其衍生词相关的术语。经过筛选,共纳入 136 篇文章。数据被分为四个主题类别:(1)用于描述和解决责任问题的各种术语;(2)与责任相关的原则和概念;(3)利益相关者在人工智能临床开发、使用和部署中的责任;以及(4)解决责任问题的建议。研究结果表明,医疗保健领域缺乏对人工智能责任的明确定义,并强调了确保在医疗保健领域负责任地开发和实施人工智能的重要性。有必要开展进一步研究,以澄清这一概念,从而为制定人工智能生命周期中各利益相关方的责任类型(伦理/道德/专业、法律和因果关系)框架做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.
期刊最新文献
Opening Access to the Bioethics Spectrum An Ethical Analysis of the Online Content of Assisted Reproductive Technology Centers in Bangladesh Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Medical Student Journals Reflections from Chinese and Japanese Physicians on Medical Disputes The Effectiveness of a Hospital Ethics Committee in a Non-Western Country: Lessons from a Ten-Year Experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1