Strengthening ethics review of the development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in health research: a guide for research ethics committees in Uganda.

IF 3.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Sylvia Nabukenya, William Wasswa, Adelline Twimukye, Erisa S Mwaka
{"title":"Strengthening ethics review of the development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in health research: a guide for research ethics committees in Uganda.","authors":"Sylvia Nabukenya, William Wasswa, Adelline Twimukye, Erisa S Mwaka","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01314-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data in real-time and improve patients' diagnosis has led to a rapid growth of AI- health research in Uganda. Yet, there are no national guidelines on how to conduct AI-research in an ethical manner. Recent studies have reported that ethics committees lack resources, expertise and training to appropriately address the risks that may arise from AI health research. This study aimed to develop a guide for ethical review of the development of AI systems in health research in Uganda.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed an exploratory qualitative approach between March - October 2024, involving 35 stakeholders in two public universities in Uganda. In-depth interviews were conducted with twelve members of ethics committees who had ever reviewed AI- protocols, six bioethicists, eight health researchers and nine members of AI-development teams. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six themes emerged from this data including promoting social value and equity; ensuring participants and end-user autonomy and safety; addressing data acquisition, access and sharing gaps; ensuring responsible data use and data minimization; promoting responsible AI and fostering collaborative partnerships. Respondents opined that AI holds promise for improving health research. However, its successful implementation demands ethical considerations to minimize harm to participants and end-users.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, respondents felt that developing a guide for ethics review of AI-research may minimize potential harms that could arise from using AI tools in research. We recommend training of ethics committees on key ethical considerations for development of responsible AI tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"137"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12529808/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01314-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data in real-time and improve patients' diagnosis has led to a rapid growth of AI- health research in Uganda. Yet, there are no national guidelines on how to conduct AI-research in an ethical manner. Recent studies have reported that ethics committees lack resources, expertise and training to appropriately address the risks that may arise from AI health research. This study aimed to develop a guide for ethical review of the development of AI systems in health research in Uganda.

Methods: This study employed an exploratory qualitative approach between March - October 2024, involving 35 stakeholders in two public universities in Uganda. In-depth interviews were conducted with twelve members of ethics committees who had ever reviewed AI- protocols, six bioethicists, eight health researchers and nine members of AI-development teams. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results.

Results: Six themes emerged from this data including promoting social value and equity; ensuring participants and end-user autonomy and safety; addressing data acquisition, access and sharing gaps; ensuring responsible data use and data minimization; promoting responsible AI and fostering collaborative partnerships. Respondents opined that AI holds promise for improving health research. However, its successful implementation demands ethical considerations to minimize harm to participants and end-users.

Conclusion: Overall, respondents felt that developing a guide for ethics review of AI-research may minimize potential harms that could arise from using AI tools in research. We recommend training of ethics committees on key ethical considerations for development of responsible AI tools.

加强对卫生研究中人工智能系统发展的伦理审查:乌干达研究伦理委员会指南
导读:人工智能(AI)实时分析数据和改善患者诊断的能力导致乌干达人工智能健康研究的快速增长。然而,目前还没有关于如何以道德方式进行人工智能研究的国家指导方针。最近的研究报告称,伦理委员会缺乏资源、专门知识和培训,无法适当应对人工智能健康研究可能产生的风险。这项研究旨在为乌干达卫生研究中人工智能系统的发展制定伦理审查指南。方法:本研究在2024年3月至10月期间采用探索性定性方法,涉及乌干达两所公立大学的35名利益相关者。对曾审查过人工智能协议的12名伦理委员会成员、6名生物伦理学家、8名卫生研究人员和9名人工智能开发团队成员进行了深入访谈。采用专题方法来解释结果。结果:从这些数据中产生了六个主题,包括促进社会价值和公平;确保参与者和最终用户的自主权和安全性;解决数据获取、获取和共享方面的差距;确保负责任的数据使用和数据最小化;推动负责任的人工智能,培育合作伙伴关系。受访者认为,人工智能有望改善健康研究。然而,它的成功实施需要伦理考虑,以尽量减少对参与者和最终用户的伤害。结论:总体而言,受访者认为制定人工智能研究伦理审查指南可以最大限度地减少在研究中使用人工智能工具可能产生的潜在危害。我们建议就开发负责任的人工智能工具的关键伦理考虑对伦理委员会进行培训。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信