Addressing ethical issues in healthcare artificial intelligence using a lifecycle-informed process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) proceeds through an iterative and evaluative process of development, use, and refinement which may be characterized as a lifecycle. Within this context, stakeholders can vary in their interests and perceptions of the ethical issues associated with this rapidly evolving technology in ways that can fail to identify and avert adverse outcomes. Identifying issues throughout the AI lifecycle in a systematic manner can facilitate better-informed ethical deliberation. Materials and Methods: We analyzed existing lifecycles from within the current literature for ethical issues of AI in healthcare to identify themes, which we relied upon to create a lifecycle that consolidates these themes into a more comprehensive lifecycle. We then considered the potential benefits and harms of AI through this lifecycle to identify ethical questions that can arise at each step and to identify where conflicts and errors could arise in ethical analysis. We illustrated the approach in 3 case studies that highlight how different ethical dilemmas arise at different points in the lifecycle. Results Discussion and Conclusion: Through case studies, we show how a systematic lifecycle-informed approach to the ethical analysis of AI enables mapping of the effects of AI onto different steps to guide deliberations on benefits and harms. The lifecycle-informed approach has broad applicability to different stakeholders and can facilitate communication on ethical issues for patients, healthcare professionals, research participants, and other stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.157 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".