Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Author index

Page Path
HOME > Browse articles > Author index
Search
Young-Hak Kim 1 Article
Ethical challenges regarding artificial intelligence in medicine from the perspective of scientific editing and peer review
Seong Ho Park, Young-Hak Kim, Jun Young Lee, Soyoung Yoo, Chong Jai Kim
Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):91-98.   Published online June 19, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.164
  • 14,594 View
  • 396 Download
  • 15 Web of Science
  • 16 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
This review article aims to highlight several areas in research studies on artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine that currently require additional transparency and explain why additional transparency is needed. Transparency regarding training data, test data and results, interpretation of study results, and the sharing of algorithms and data are major areas for guaranteeing ethical standards in AI research. For transparency in training data, clarifying the biases and errors in training data and the AI algorithms based on these training data prior to their implementation is critical. Furthermore, biases about institutions and socioeconomic groups should be considered. For transparency in test data and test results, authors should state if the test data were collected externally or internally and prospectively or retrospectively at first. It is necessary to distinguish whether datasets were convenience samples consisting of some positive and some negative cases or clinical cohorts. When datasets from multiple institutions were used, authors should report results from each individual institution. Full publication of the results of AI research is also important. For transparency in interpreting study results, authors should interpret the results explicitly and avoid over-interpretation. For transparency by sharing algorithms and data, sharing is required for replication and reproducibility of the research by other researchers. All of the above mentioned high standards regarding transparency of AI research in healthcare should be considered to facilitate the ethical conduct of AI research.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Towards Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Medical Devices as a Real-Time Recommender System for Personalised Healthcare: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects
    Talha Iqbal, Mehedi Masud, Bilal Amin, Conor Feely, Mary Faherty, Tim Jones, Michelle Tierney, Atif Shahzad, Patricia Vazquez
    Health Sciences Review.2024; : 100150.     CrossRef
  • The Knowledge of Students at Bursa Faculty of Medicine towards Artificial Intelligence: A Survey Study
    Deniz GÜVEN, Elif Güler KAZANCI, Ayşe ÖREN, Livanur SEVER, Pelin ÜNLÜ
    Journal of Bursa Faculty of Medicine.2024; 2(1): 20.     CrossRef
  • Artificial intelligence technology in MR neuroimaging. А radiologist’s perspective
    G. E. Trufanov, A. Yu. Efimtsev
    Russian Journal for Personalized Medicine.2023; 3(1): 6.     CrossRef
  • The minefield of indeterminate thyroid nodules: could artificial intelligence be a suitable diagnostic tool?
    Vincenzo Fiorentino, Cristina Pizzimenti, Mariausilia Franchina, Marina Gloria Micali, Fernanda Russotto, Ludovica Pepe, Gaetano Basilio Militi, Pietro Tralongo, Francesco Pierconti, Antonio Ieni, Maurizio Martini, Giovanni Tuccari, Esther Diana Rossi, Gu
    Diagnostic Histopathology.2023; 29(8): 396.     CrossRef
  • Ethical, legal, and social considerations of AI-based medical decision-support tools: A scoping review
    Anto Čartolovni, Ana Tomičić, Elvira Lazić Mosler
    International Journal of Medical Informatics.2022; 161: 104738.     CrossRef
  • Transparency of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Insights from Professionals in Computing and Healthcare Worldwide
    Jose Bernal, Claudia Mazo
    Applied Sciences.2022; 12(20): 10228.     CrossRef
  • Artificial intelligence in the water domain: Opportunities for responsible use
    Neelke Doorn
    Science of The Total Environment.2021; 755: 142561.     CrossRef
  • Artificial intelligence for ultrasonography: unique opportunities and challenges
    Seong Ho Park
    Ultrasonography.2021; 40(1): 3.     CrossRef
  • Key Principles of Clinical Validation, Device Approval, and Insurance Coverage Decisions of Artificial Intelligence
    Seong Ho Park, Jaesoon Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon
    Korean Journal of Radiology.2021; 22(3): 442.     CrossRef
  • Is it alright to use artificial intelligence in digital health? A systematic literature review on ethical considerations
    Nicholas RJ Möllmann, Milad Mirbabaie, Stefan Stieglitz
    Health Informatics Journal.2021; 27(4): 146045822110523.     CrossRef
  • Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels
    Mark P. Sendak, Michael Gao, Nathan Brajer, Suresh Balu
    npj Digital Medicine.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Artificial intelligence with multi-functional machine learning platform development for better healthcare and precision medicine
    Zeeshan Ahmed, Khalid Mohamed, Saman Zeeshan, XinQi Dong
    Database.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • The ethics of machine learning in medical sciences: Where do we stand today?
    Treena Basu, Sebastian Engel-Wolf, Olaf Menzer
    Indian Journal of Dermatology.2020; 65(5): 358.     CrossRef
  • Key principles of clinical validation, device approval, and insurance coverage decisions of artificial intelligence
    Seong Ho Park, Jaesoon Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon
    Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2020; 63(11): 696.     CrossRef
  • Reflections as 2020 comes to an end: the editing and educational environment during the COVID-19 pandemic, the power of Scopus and Web of Science in scholarly publishing, journal statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers
    Sun Huh
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2020; 17: 44.     CrossRef
  • What should medical students know about artificial intelligence in medicine?
    Seong Ho Park, Kyung-Hyun Do, Sungwon Kim, Joo Hyun Park, Young-Suk Lim
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2019; 16: 18.     CrossRef

Science Editing : Science Editing