评估国家和国际人工智能政策对可持续发展目标3:良好健康和福祉的规范影响。

IF 2.7
Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2025-05-29 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxaf108
Francesca Mazzi
{"title":"评估国家和国际人工智能政策对可持续发展目标3:良好健康和福祉的规范影响。","authors":"Francesca Mazzi","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxaf108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformative potential in healthcare, promising advancements in diagnostics, treatment, and patient management, attracting significant investments and policy efforts globally. Effective AI governance, comprising guidelines, policy papers, and regulations, is crucial for its successful integration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study evaluates 10 AI policies, namely focusing on 5 international organizations: the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Council of Europe, the G20, and UNESCO, and 5 regional/national entities: Brazil, the United States, the European Union (EU), China, and the United Kingdom, to highlight the implications of AI governance for healthcare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The EU AI Act focuses on risk management and individual protection while fostering innovation aligned with European values. The United Kingdom and the United States adopt a more flexible approach, offering guidelines to stimulate rapid AI integration and innovation without imposing strict regulations. Brazil shows a convergence toward the EU's risk-based approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study explores the normative implications of these varied approaches. The EU's stringent regulations may ensure higher safety and ethical standards, potentially setting a global benchmark, but they could also hinder innovation and pose compliance challenges. The United Kingdom's lenient approach may drive faster AI adoption and competitiveness but risks inconsistencies in safety and ethics. The study concludes by offering recommendations for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"3 6","pages":"qxaf108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202991/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the normative implications of national and international artificial intelligence policies for Sustainable Development Goal 3: good health and well-being.\",\"authors\":\"Francesca Mazzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/haschl/qxaf108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformative potential in healthcare, promising advancements in diagnostics, treatment, and patient management, attracting significant investments and policy efforts globally. Effective AI governance, comprising guidelines, policy papers, and regulations, is crucial for its successful integration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study evaluates 10 AI policies, namely focusing on 5 international organizations: the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Council of Europe, the G20, and UNESCO, and 5 regional/national entities: Brazil, the United States, the European Union (EU), China, and the United Kingdom, to highlight the implications of AI governance for healthcare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The EU AI Act focuses on risk management and individual protection while fostering innovation aligned with European values. The United Kingdom and the United States adopt a more flexible approach, offering guidelines to stimulate rapid AI integration and innovation without imposing strict regulations. Brazil shows a convergence toward the EU's risk-based approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study explores the normative implications of these varied approaches. The EU's stringent regulations may ensure higher safety and ethical standards, potentially setting a global benchmark, but they could also hinder innovation and pose compliance challenges. The United Kingdom's lenient approach may drive faster AI adoption and competitiveness but risks inconsistencies in safety and ethics. The study concludes by offering recommendations for future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"volume\":\"3 6\",\"pages\":\"qxaf108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202991/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf108\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导语:人工智能(AI)在医疗保健领域具有变革潜力,在诊断、治疗和患者管理方面有希望取得进展,吸引了全球大量投资和政策努力。有效的人工智能治理,包括指导方针、政策文件和法规,对其成功整合至关重要。方法:本研究评估了10项人工智能政策,即重点关注5个国际组织:联合国、经济合作与发展组织(OECD)、欧洲委员会、20国集团和联合国教科文组织,以及5个区域/国家实体:巴西、美国、欧盟(EU)、中国和英国,以突出人工智能治理对医疗保健的影响。结果:欧盟人工智能法案侧重于风险管理和个人保护,同时促进符合欧洲价值观的创新。英国和美国采取了更灵活的方法,在不施加严格监管的情况下,提供了刺激人工智能快速整合和创新的指导方针。巴西表现出向欧盟基于风险的方法趋同。结论:本研究探讨了这些不同方法的规范性含义。欧盟严格的法规可能会确保更高的安全和道德标准,可能会树立一个全球基准,但它们也可能阻碍创新,并带来合规挑战。英国宽松的做法可能会加快人工智能的采用和竞争力,但可能会导致安全和道德方面的不一致。该研究最后提出了对未来研究的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the normative implications of national and international artificial intelligence policies for Sustainable Development Goal 3: good health and well-being.

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformative potential in healthcare, promising advancements in diagnostics, treatment, and patient management, attracting significant investments and policy efforts globally. Effective AI governance, comprising guidelines, policy papers, and regulations, is crucial for its successful integration.

Methods: This study evaluates 10 AI policies, namely focusing on 5 international organizations: the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Council of Europe, the G20, and UNESCO, and 5 regional/national entities: Brazil, the United States, the European Union (EU), China, and the United Kingdom, to highlight the implications of AI governance for healthcare.

Results: The EU AI Act focuses on risk management and individual protection while fostering innovation aligned with European values. The United Kingdom and the United States adopt a more flexible approach, offering guidelines to stimulate rapid AI integration and innovation without imposing strict regulations. Brazil shows a convergence toward the EU's risk-based approach.

Conclusions: The study explores the normative implications of these varied approaches. The EU's stringent regulations may ensure higher safety and ethical standards, potentially setting a global benchmark, but they could also hinder innovation and pose compliance challenges. The United Kingdom's lenient approach may drive faster AI adoption and competitiveness but risks inconsistencies in safety and ethics. The study concludes by offering recommendations for future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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