{"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}
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.