The Ethical Dilemmas of Artificial Intelligence In Nursing: A Systematic Review

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare presents significant promise to enhance clinical procedures and patient outcomes. This research examines the setting, methodology, conclusions, and issues associated with AI in healthcare. The swift proliferation of digital health data, encompassing medical imaging and clinical records, has generated substantial prospects for AI applications. Artificial intelligence methodologies, including machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision, facilitate the derivation of significant insights from intricate datasets, hence improving clinical decision-making. A thorough literature review examines the practical applications of AI, encompassing its roles in medical diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient outcome prediction. The report also examines ethical issues, data protection, and legal frameworks, which are crucial for the responsible application of AI in healthcare. The results illustrate AI's capacity to enhance diagnostic precision, facilitate administrative efficiency, and optimise resource distribution, resulting in tailored therapies and improved healthcare administration. Nonetheless, obstacles persist, such as data integrity, algorithm transparency, and ethical considerations, which must be resolved to guarantee the secure and efficient deployment of AI. Continuous research, cooperation between healthcare and AI experts, and the establishment of comprehensive regulatory frameworks are essential for optimising the advantages of AI while minimising hazards. This research highlights AI's capacity to transform healthcare, stressing the necessity for a multidisciplinary strategy to effectively harness its benefits and tackle the associated ethical and regulatory dilemmas.

The purpose of this research is to identify and evaluate the technical, ethical and regulatory challenges related to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare. The potential applications of AI in healthcare seem limitless and vary in their nature and scope, ranging from privacy, research, informed consent, patient autonomy, accountability, health equity, fairness, AI-based diagnostic algorithms to care management through automation for specific manual activities to reduce paperwork and human error. The main challenges faced by states in regulating the use of AI in healthcare were identified, especially the legal voids and complexities for adequate regulation and better transparency. A few recommendations were made to protect health data, mitigate risks and regulate more efficiently the use of AI in healthcare through international cooperation and the adoption of harmonized standards under the World Health Organization (WHO) in line with its constitutional mandate to regulate digital and public health. European Union (EU) law can serve as a model and guidance for the WHO for a reform of the International Health Regulations (IHR).

Photo by Josh Riemer on Unsplash
 Introduction
 With the rapid advancements in neurotechnological machinery and improved analytical insights from machine learning in neuroscience, the availability of big brain data has increased tremendously. Neurological health research is done using digitized brain data.[1] There must be adequate data governance to secure the privacy of subjects participating in brain research and treatments. If not properly regulated, the research methods could lead to significant breaches of the subject’s autonomy and privacy. This paper will address the necessity for neuroprotection laws, which effectively govern the use of big brain data to ensure respect for patient privacy and autonomy.
 Background
 Artificial intelligence and machine learning can be integrated with neuroscience big brain data to drive research studies. This integrative technology allows patterns of electrical activity in neurons to be studied in detail.[2]Specifically, it uses a robotic system which can reason, plan, and exhibit biologically intelligent behavior. Machine learning is a method of computer programming where the code can adapt its behavior based on big brain data.[3] The big brain data is the collection of large amounts of information for the purpose of deciphering patterns through computer analysis using machine learning.[4] The information that these technologies provide is extensive enough to allow a researcher to read a patient’s mind. AI and machine learning technologies work by finding the underlying structure of brain data, which is then described by patterns known as latent factors, eventually resulting in an understanding of the brain’s temporal dynamics.[5]
 Through these technologies, researchers are able to decipher how the human brain computes its performances and thoughts. However, due to the extensive and complex nature of the data processed through AI and machine learning, researchers may gain access to personal information a patient may not wish to reveal. From a bioethical lens, tensions arise in the realm of patient autonomy. Patients are not able to control the transmission of data from their brains that is analyzed by researchers. Governing brain data through laws may enhance the extent of patient privacy in the case where brain data is being used through AI technologies.[6] A responsible approach to governing brain data would require a sophisticated legal structure.
 Analysis
 Impact on Patient Autonomy and Privacy 
 In research pertaining to big brain data, the consent forms do not fully cover the vast amounts of information that is collected. According to research, personal data has become the most sought out commodity to provide content to corporations and the web-based service industry. Unfortunately, data leaks that release private information frequently occur.[7] The storage of an individual’s data on technologies accessible on the internet during research studies makes it vulnerable to leaks, jeopardizing an individual’s privacy. These data leaks may cause the patient to be identified easily, as the degree of information provided by AI technologies are personalized and may be decoded through brain fingerprinting methods.[8]
 There has been an extensive growth in the development and use of AI. It is efficient in providing information to radiologists who diagnose various diseases including brain cancer and psychiatric disease, and AI assists in the delivery of telemedicine.[9] However, the ethical pitfall of reduced patient autonomy must be addressed by analyzing current AI technologies and creating more options for patient preference in how the data may be used. For instance, facial recognition technology[10] commonly used in health care produces more information than listed in common consent forms, threatening to undermine informed consent. Facial recognition software collects extensive data and may disclose more information than a person would prefer to provide despite being a useful tool for diagnosing medical and genetic conditions.[11] In addition, people may not be aware that their images are being used to generate more clinical data for other purposes. It is difficult to guarantee the data is anonymized. Consent requirements must include informing people about the complexity of the potential uses of the data; software developers should maximize patient privacy.[12] Furthermore, there is a “human element” in the use of AI technologies as medical providers control the use and the extent to which data is captured or accessed through the AI technologies.[13] People must understand the scope of the technology and have clear communication with the physician or health care provider about how the medical information will be used. 
 Existing Laws for Brain Data Governance 
 A strict system of defined legal responsibilities of medical providers will ensure a higher degree of patient privacy and autonomy when AI technologies and data from machine learning are used. Governing specific algorithmic data is crucial in safeguarding a patient’s privacy and developing a gold standard treatment protocol following the procurement of the information.[14] Certain AI technologies provide more data than others, and legal boundaries should be established to ensure strong performance, quality control, and scope for patient privacy and autonomy. For instance, currently AI technologies are being used in the realm of intensive neurological care. However, there is a significant level of patient uncertainty about how much control patients have over the data’s uses.[15] Calibrated legal and ethical standards will allow important brain data to be securely governed and monitored.
 Once brain signals are recorded and processed from one individual, the data may be merged with other data in Brain Computer Interface Technology (BCI).[16] To ensure a right and ability to retrieve personal data or pull it from the collection, specific regulations for varying types of data are needed.[17] The importance of consent and patient privacy must be considered through giving patients a transparent view of how brain data is governed.[18] The legal system must address discriminatory issues and risks to patients whose data is used in studies. Laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CCPA) can serve as effective models to protect aggregated data. These laws govern consumer information and ensure the compliance when personal data is collected.[19] California voters recently approved expansion of the CCPA to health data. The Washington Privacy Act, which would have provided rights to access, change, and withdraw personal data, failed to pass. Other states should improve privacy as well,[20] although a federal bill would be preferable. Scientists at the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences argue for data security to be governed in a manner that balances patient privacy and autonomy with the commercial interests of researchers.[21] The balance could be achieved through privacy protections like those in the Washington Privacy Act. Although the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides an overall framework to deter the likelihood of dangers to patient protection and privacy, more thorough laws are warranted to combat pervasive data transfer and analysis that technology has brought to the health care industry.[22] Breaches of patient privacy under current HIPAA regulations include releasing patient information to a reporter without their consent and sending HIV data to a patient’s employer without consent.[23] HIPAA does not cover information being shared with outside contractors who do not have an agreement with technology companies to keep patient data confidential. HIPAA regulations also do not always address blatant breaches on patient data confidentiality.[24] Patients must be provided with methods to monitor the data being analyzed to be able to view the extent of private information being generated via AI technologies. In health research, the medical purposes of better diagnosis, earlier detection of diseases, or prevention are ethical justifications for the use of the data if it was collected with permission, the person understood and approved the uses of the data, and the data was deidentified.
 A standard governance framework is required in providing the fairest system of care to patients who allow their brain data to be examined. Informed consent in the neuroscience field could reaffirm the privacy and autonomy of patients by ensuring that they understand the type of information collected. Laws also could protect data after a patient’s death. Malpractice in the scope of brain data could give people a cause of action critical in safeguarding patient’s rights. Data breach lawsuits will become common but generally do not cover deidentified data that becomes part of big data collection. A more synchronized approach to the collection and consent process will encourage an understanding of how big data is used to diagnose and treat patients. Some altruistic people may even be more likely to consent if they know the largescale data collection is helpful to treat and diagnose people. Others should have the ability to opt out of sharing neurological data, especially when there is not certainty surrounding deidentification.[25]
 Conclusion
 Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies have the potential to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of people globally by extracting and aggregating brain data specific to individuals. However, the secure use of the data is necessary to build trust between care providers and patients, as well as in balancing the bioethical principles of beneficence and patient autonomy. We must ensure the highest quality of care to patients, while protecting their privacy, informed consent, and clinical trust. More sophis

BackgroundThe rapid trajectory of artificial intelligence (AI) development and advancement is quickly outpacing society's ability to determine its future role. As AI continues to transform various aspects of our lives, one critical question arises for medical education: what will be the nature of education, teaching, and learning in a future world where the acquisition, retention, and application of knowledge in the traditional sense are fundamentally altered by AI?ObjectiveThe purpose of this perspective is to plan for the intersection of health care and medical education in the future.MethodsWe used GPT-4 and scenario-based strategic planning techniques to craft 4 hypothetical future worlds influenced by AI's integration into health care and medical education. This method, used by organizations such as Shell and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, assesses readiness for alternative futures and effectively manages uncertainty, risk, and opportunity. The detailed scenarios provide insights into potential environments the medical profession may face and lay the foundation for hypothesis generation and idea-building regarding responsible AI implementation.ResultsThe following 4 worlds were created using OpenAI’s GPT model: AI Harmony, AI conflict, The world of Ecological Balance, and Existential Risk. Risks include disinformation and misinformation, loss of privacy, widening inequity, erosion of human autonomy, and ethical dilemmas. Benefits involve improved efficiency, personalized interventions, enhanced collaboration, early detection, and accelerated research.ConclusionsTo ensure responsible AI use, the authors suggest focusing on 3 key areas: developing a robust ethical framework, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and investing in education and training. A strong ethical framework emphasizes patient safety, privacy, and autonomy while promoting equity and inclusivity. Interdisciplinary collaboration encourages cooperation among various experts in developing and implementing AI technologies, ensuring that they address the complex needs and challenges in health care and medical education. Investing in education and training prepares professionals and trainees with necessary skills and knowledge to effectively use and critically evaluate AI technologies. The integration of AI in health care and medical education presents a critical juncture between transformative advancements and significant risks. By working together to address both immediate and long-term risks and consequences, we can ensure that AI integration leads to a more equitable, sustainable, and prosperous future for both health care and medical education. As we engage with AI technologies, our collective actions will ultimately determine the state of the future of health care and medical education to harness AI's power while ensuring the safety and well-being of humanity.

The convergence of healthcare with the Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping medical practice with promising enhanced data-driven insights, automated decision-making, and remote patient monitoring. It has the transformative potential of these technologies to revolutionize diagnosis, treatment, and patient care. This study aims to explore the integration of IoT and AI in healthcare, outlining their applications, benefits, challenges, and potential risks. By synthesizing existing literature, this study aims to provide insights into the current landscape of AI, IoT, and AIoT in healthcare, identify areas for future research and development, and establish a framework for the effective use of AI in health. A comprehensive literature review included indexed databases such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Key search terms related to IoT, AI, healthcare, and medicine were employed to identify relevant studies. Papers were screened based on their relevance to the specified themes, and eventually, a selected number of papers were methodically chosen for this review. The integration of IoT and AI in healthcare offers significant advancements, including remote patient monitoring, personalized medicine, and operational efficiency. Wearable sensors, cloud-based data storage, and AI-driven algorithms enable real-time data collection, disease diagnosis, and treatment planning. However, challenges such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, and regulatory compliance must be addressed to ensure responsible deployment of these technologies. Integrating IoT and AI in healthcare holds immense promise for improving patient outcomes and optimizing healthcare delivery. Despite challenges such as data privacy concerns and algorithmic biases, the transformative potential of these technologies cannot be overstated. Clear governance frameworks, transparent AI decision-making processes, and ethical considerations are essential to mitigate risks and harness the full benefits of IoT and AI in healthcare.

BackgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) holds substantial potential to alter diagnostics and treatment in health care settings. However, public attitudes toward AI, including trust and risk perception, are key to its ethical and effective adoption. Despite growing interest, empirical research on the factors shaping public support for AI in health care (particularly in large-scale, representative contexts) remains limited.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate public attitudes toward AI in patient health care, focusing on how AI attributes (autonomy, costs, reliability, and transparency) shape perceptions of support, risk, and personalized care. In addition, it examines the moderating role of sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, educational level, migration background, and subjective health status) in these evaluations. Our study offers novel insights into the relative importance of AI system characteristics for public attitudes and acceptance.MethodsWe conducted a factorial vignette experiment with a probability-based survey of 3030 participants from Germany’s general population. Respondents were presented with hypothetical scenarios involving AI applications in diagnosis and treatment in a hospital setting. Linear regression models assessed the relative influence of AI attributes on the dependent variables (support, risk perception, and personalized care), with additional subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsMean values between 4.2 and 4.4 on a 1-7 scale indicate a generally neutral to slightly negative stance toward AI integration in terms of general support, risk perception, and personalized care expectations, with responses spanning the full scale from strong support to strong opposition. Among the 4 dimensions, reliability emerges as the most influential factor (percentage of explained variance [EV] of up to 10.5%). Respondents expect AI to not only prevent errors but also exceed current reliability standards while strongly disapproving of nontraceable systems (transparency is another important factor, percentage of EV of up to 4%). Costs and autonomy play a comparatively minor role (percentage of EVs of up to 1.5% and 1.3%), with preferences favoring collaborative AI systems over autonomous ones, and higher costs generally leading to rejection. Heterogeneity analysis reveals limited sociodemographic differences, with education and migration background influencing attitudes toward transparency and autonomy, and gender differences primarily affecting cost-related perceptions. Overall, attitudes do not substantially differ between AI applications in diagnosis versus treatment.ConclusionsOur study fills a critical research gap by identifying the key factors that shape public trust and acceptance of AI in health care, particularly reliability, transparency, and patient-centered approaches. Our findings provide evidence-based recommendations for policy makers, health care providers, and AI developers to enhance trust and accountability, key concerns often overlooked in system development and real-world applications. The study highlights the need for targeted policy and educational initiatives to support the responsible integration of AI in patient care.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has the potential to revolutionize the industry by improving patient outcomes and increasing efficiency. However, the rapid development and implementation of AI technologies raise complex legal issues and challenges. This article explores the key legal aspects of AI integration in healthcare, including data privacy and security, liability and accountability, intellectual property, and regulatory compliance. It examines relevant international and national legal instruments, regulations, and guidelines, as well as industry-specific standards that apply to AI in healthcare. The study also analyzes case studies and practical applications to highlight legal challenges and resolutions, lessons learned, and best practices. The discussion addresses the implications of the results, comparing the legal landscape for AI in healthcare to other industries and countries and highlighting potential future legal developments and challenges. The conclusion summarizes key findings, offers recommendations for integrating AI in healthcare systems while addressing legal concerns, and proposes future directions for legal research and policy development in the context of AI and healthcare. This comprehensive analysis aims to inform healthcare providers, AI developers, and policymakers on the legal landscape surrounding AI in healthcare, providing valuable insights to navigate this complex domain and harness the potential of AI to transform healthcare delivery.

Background and objective: The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has resulted in substantial advances in diagnostics, prognostics, clinical decision support systems, and patient monitoring. Despite promising performance, many AI-based systems remain insufficiently understood by clinicians and patients due to their “black-box” nature. This lack of transparency may undermine trust, hinder acceptance, and limit safe integration into routine clinical practice. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has emerged as a response to these challenges by enabling human-interpretable explanations of algorithmic decisions. The objective of this narrative review is to synthesize current evidence on XAI in healthcare, with particular emphasis on its technical foundations, clinical applications, influence on trust and decision-making, and broader social and ethical implications. Scope of review: This review synthesizes literature published between 2019 and 2025 addressing explainability in medical AI. The analysis includes methodological studies, clinical evaluations, human–computer interaction research, and social science investigations related to transparency, trust, accountability, and acceptance of AI systems. Relevant publications were identified through structured searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar using keywords related to explainable AI, interpretability, ethics, trust, and clinical decision support. Findings: XAI methods—including feature attribution, model simplification, counterfactual explanations, and visualization techniques—demonstrate potential to enhance clinician understanding of AI outputs and increase confidence in algorithm-assisted decisions. Evidence suggests that explainability may support diagnostic accuracy, reduce automation bias, and facilitate error detection. However, explainability alone does not ensure trust. Clinical context, user expertise, organizational culture, and regulatory frameworks play critical roles in shaping the adoption and appropriate use of explainable systems. Empirical research addressing patient perspectives remains limited. Conclusions: Explainable AI constitutes an important step toward the responsible and socially acceptable integration of intelligent systems in healthcare. While XAI can enhance transparency and trust, its effectiveness depends on thoughtful design, contextual adaptation to clinical workflows, and alignment with user needs. Further interdisciplinary research is required to standardize explainability approaches, evaluate their real-world impact on clinical outcomes, and address the ethical, legal, and societal challenges associated with medical AI.

Objectives The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is a growing field of research and clinical application. The views of the general public, ie future healthcare users, need to be surveyed and interpreted so that researchers and the public have a shared understanding of the appropriate use of AI. Currently, there is only limited data on the public’s views. Methods An anonymous, quantitative questionnaire was administered as part of a public exhibition on AI. The questionnaire was based on previously validated questions designed to assess respondents’ views on the use of AI in healthcare. Brief demographic data were also collected. Results The population surveyed was more diverse and younger than the general UK population (65% white, 45% aged 18-29). Respondents were largely comfortable with the application of AI in healthcare: 80% felt positively about its use, 56% thought it would be safe. 70% did not feel that it would replace doctors, and most would not be happy for AI to make decisions without considering their feelings. Conclusions Our study shows that the population we surveyed, particularly young future healthcare users, are comfortable with the use of AI in healthcare, but do not see it as a replacement for doctors. Advances in knowledge This paper highlights views from the general public on the use of AI in healthcare, which is largely under researched.

Objective: The objective of this study is to examine the civil liability implications of errors associated with artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare, with the aim of proposing comprehensive legal frameworks to regulate AI’s integration into the sector. This research seeks to align AI advancements with international standards and sustainable development goals, particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). Theoretical Framework: The research is grounded in international human rights conventions, national legislation on data protection, and frameworks such as the World Health Organization’s guidelines and the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law. These provide a robust foundation for exploring the legal and ethical dimensions of AI in healthcare. Method: A qualitative research approach was adopted, analysing legal documents, international standards, and case studies to assess the regulatory challenges of AI in healthcare. The study also reviews best practices from jurisdictions effectively addressing AI’s legal and ethical implications. Results and Discussion: The findings reveal significant gaps in existing legal frameworks governing AI in healthcare, particularly in areas of accountability and data protection. The discussion contextualizes these gaps within the theoretical framework, emphasizing the need for proactive legislative measures. Challenges such as algorithmic bias, transparency, and equitable access to AI technologies are critically examined. Research Implications: The study underscores the necessity for Omani legislators to adopt robust regulatory measures, ensuring accountability and alignment with international best practices. These measures can enhance healthcare quality and contribute to sustainable development. Originality/Value: This study contributes to the literature by addressing the underexplored legal and ethical challenges of AI in healthcare within the context of sustainable development. It offers actionable recommendations for policymakers, emphasizing the responsible and ethical use of AI to advance medical innovation and protect human rights.

The application of Machine Learning (ML) in healthcare has opened unprecedented avenues for predictive analytics, diagnostics, and personalized medicine. However, the sensitivity of healthcare data and the ethical dilemmas associated with automated decision-making necessitate a rigorous ethical framework. This review paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing ethical frameworks that guide ML in healthcare and evaluates their adequacy in ad-dressing ethical challenges. Specifically, this article offers an in-depth examination of prevailing ethical constructs that oversee healthcare ML, spotlighting pivotal concerns: data protection, in-formed assent, equity, and patient autonomy. Various analytical approaches including quantitative metrics, statistical methods for bias detection, and qualitative thematic analyses are applied to address these challenges. Insights are further enriched through case studies of Clinical Decision Support Systems, Remote Patient Monitoring, and Telemedicine Applications. Each case is evaluated against existing ethical frameworks to identify limitations and gaps. Based on our com-prehensive review and evaluation, we propose actionable recommendations for evolving ethical guidelines. The paper concludes by summarizing key findings and underscoring the urgent need for robust ethical frameworks to guide ML applications in sensitive healthcare environments. Future work should focus on the development and empirical validation of new ethical frameworks that can adapt to emerging technologies and ethical dilemmas in healthcare ML.

The Promise Fund and Hologic Inc. have partnered to expand access to AI-supported breast cancer screening exams in a medically underserved population. As part of this initiative, patient focus groups and patient navigator interviews were conducted to explore patient experiences and perceptions related to breast health, mammography, and artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. These interviews were held, virtually, between February and March 2024, and focus groups were held, in-person, on April 9-10, 2024, with participants at FoundCare and the Community Health Center. FoundCare, a federally qualified health center (FQHC), and Community Health Center, a free clinic, both collaborate with the Promise Fund in promoting access to women’s breast and cervical health screenings, diagnostic follow up and cancer care services. The in-person sessions, attended by twenty patients, and the virtual interviews, attended by six patient navigators, were designed to represent diverse linguistic, racial, and cultural backgrounds, including multiple Spanish-speaking communities from Mexico, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Chile, and Venezuela. All patient navigators were adult women from various free clinics and FQHCs. Patient participants were adult females, all at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Key themes from the discussions included: 1. Health Information Sources: Patients primarily relied on the internet, community health centers, medical visits, family, and cultural community communications for health information. Some patients expressed difficulty in keeping up with health information and emphasized the importance of direct medical consultations with providers and preventive care. Patient navigators were a critical source of information once the patient could access and be connected to that resource. Clinical health and more upstream social services, such as transportation to health appointments and family food security, were also critical needs that patient navigators were key in facilitating. 2. Mammogram Experiences: Experiences with mammograms varied, with some patients reporting pain and discomfort, particularly those with implants. Regular screenings, family history of breast cancer, and personal vigilance were common motivators for mammograms. Financial barriers, insurance issues, and the need for patient advocacy were frequently highlighted. 3. AI in Healthcare: Patients had mixed levels of awareness and understanding of AI. Many associated AI with advanced diagnostics and potential improvements in early disease detection and surgical precision. Concerns included the potential loss of personal interactions with healthcare providers, privacy issues, and the fear of job displacement. However, patients had key opinions on AI that were more favorable than anticipated. There was optimism about AI’s ability to enhance diagnostic accuracy, patient experience, provider trustworthiness, and treatment outcomes. Additionally, both patients and patient navigators preferred that physicians and AI work together. Patient navigators were even more familiar with AI. Given the critical role patient navigators hold, their knowledge may play an integral role in improving patient education and access to new technologies in the future. 4. Whole Health Experience: Patients expressed a desire for a more comfortable and supportive mammography process, greater access to care, enhanced trust between patients and providers, and comprehensive information sharing across healthcare providers. Education on breast cancer, early detection, and AI in healthcare was identified as a critical need. Conclusion: The findings underscore the importance of trustworthy, patient-centered approaches in healthcare, particularly in the integration of AI technologies. Enhancing patient education and provider transparency, improving access to preventive services, and maintaining the human element in healthcare are essential for optimizing patient outcomes and satisfaction. Citation Format: Nancy Brinker. Patient Experience and Perceptions Related to Breast Health, Mammography and Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024; 2024 Dec 10-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-05-11.

This article presents a mapping review of the literature concerning the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. The goal of this review is to summarise current debates and identify open questions for future research. Five literature databases were searched (Scopus, Google Scholar, Philpapers, Web of Science, Pub Med), in April 2019, to support the following research question: “how can the primary ethical risks presented by AI-health be categorised, and what issues must policymakers, regulators and developers consider in order to be ‘ethically mindful?’”. A series of screening stages were carried out—for example, removing articles that focused on digital health in general (e.g. data sharing, data access, data privacy, surveillance/nudging, consent, ownership of health data, evidence of efficacy)—yielding a total of 156 papers that were included in the review.We find that ethical issues can be (a) epistemic, related to misguided, inconclusive or inscrutable evidence; (b) normative, related to unfair outcomes and transformative effectives; or (c) related to traceability. We further find that these ethical issues arise at six levels of abstraction: individual, interpersonal, group, institutional, and societal or sectoral. Finally, we outline a number of considerations for policymakers and regulators, mapping these to existing literature, and categorising each as epistemic, normative or traceability-related and at the relevant level of abstraction. This article contributes to the debate on AI in health care by offering a comprehensive analysis of the relevant literature, focusing on the ethical implications for individuals, interpersonal relationships, groups, institutions, societies and the health sector as a whole. Our goal is to inform policymakers, regulators and developers of what they must consider if they are to enable health and care systems to capitalise on the dual advantage of ethical AI; maximising the opportunities to cut costs, improve care, and improve the efficiency of health and care systems, whilst proactively avoiding the potential harms. We argue that if action is not swiftly taken in this regard, a new ‘AI winter’ could occur due to chilling effects related to a loss of public trust in the benefits of AI for health care.

The use of artificial intelligence has been part of the healthcare technologies used in managing various aspects of healthcare processes. In Saudi Arabia, the use of artificial intelligence for managing healthcare has been influenced by the increasing use of healthcare technologies within the healthcare system. The aim of this study is to systematically review the current state, challenges, and future directions of artificial intelligence in healthcare in Saudi Arabia. The study used a systematic review methodology, which used the critical appraisal of articles on the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare. The critical appraisal used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) to implement the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The initial search for articles led to 88 articles, which were screened to 13, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The current state of the use of artificial intelligence in Saudi's healthcare system has been slowed down by the gradual uptake of healthcare technologies and the investments required. The main challenges identified included lack of policies to support artificial intelligence, lack of adequate capital for infrastructure and human resources and lack of cultures to accommodate the artificial intelligence in Saudi Arabia. With the current privatization and increased use of the artificial intelligence, the future of artificial intelligence in Saudi's healthcare system would see an increase in their utilization. Specific findings indicate the potential of artificial intelligence in improving clinical practice through blockchain, and that investments in artificial intelligence have encompasses various applications, including radiology. Skills gaps expected among healthcare professionals and the adoption of new technology are difficulties impacting the utilization of artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector. The use of artificial intelligence in Saudi's healthcare system requires the investments into infrastructure, human resource development and gradual commitments towards the healthcare technologies. The use of artificial intelligence would have benefits such as effectiveness in access to care and ability to meet the healthcare outcomes.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming multiple sectors, including healthcare and academic education, with immense potential to revolutionize research, diagnosis, and training. However, its integration presents ethical, methodological, and practical challenges, particularly in the context of biomedical sciences. Objective. This editorial critically examines the role of AI in medical education and biomedical research, highlighting both the opportunities and challenges associated with its adoption. The goal is to provide a nuanced perspective on AI’s evolving impact while advocating for its responsible use. Methods: A descriptive and narrative approach was used, drawing upon expert insights and discussions from the European Congress of Medical Informatics (MIE 2024). Results and Discussion: The integration of AI in healthcare and academic education shows significant promise, particularly in personalized medicine, diagnostic support, and adaptive learning systems. However, concerns about scientific integrity, misuse of AI in publishing, and the need for interdisciplinary collaboration remain central. Ethical challenges, such as ensuring equitable access and preventing bias, are also critical issues. Despite these challenges, AI has the potential to improve research quality and enhance medical training. Conclusion: While AI offers transformative potential for biomedicine, its application must be carefully managed to maintain scientific rigor and ethical standards. The responsible integration of AI requires interdisciplinary collaboration, ongoing ethical reflection, and adherence to academic standards to safeguard the integrity of research and education.