Legal concerns in health-related artificial intelligence: a scoping review protocol

16Citations
Citations of this article
146Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Medical innovations offer tremendous hope. Yet, similar innovations in governance (law, policy, ethics) are likely necessary if society is to realize medical innovations’ fruits and avoid their pitfalls. As innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) advance at a rapid pace, scholars across multiple disciplines are articulating concerns in health-related AI that likely require legal responses to ensure the requisite balance. These scholarly perspectives may provide critical insights into the most pressing challenges that will help shape and advance future regulatory reforms. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, there is no comprehensive summary of the literature examining legal concerns in relation to health-related AI. We thus aim to summarize and map the literature examining legal concerns in health-related AI using a scoping review approach. Methods: The scoping review framework developed by (J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005) and extended by (Implement Sci 5:69, 2010) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guided our protocol development. In close consultation with trained librarians, we will develop a highly sensitive search for MEDLINE® (OVID) and adapt it for multiple databases designed to comprehensively capture texts in law, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, other healthcare professions (e.g., dentistry, nutrition), public health, computer science, and engineering. English- and French-language records will be included if they examine health-related AI, describe or prioritize a legal concern in health-related AI or propose a solution thereto, and were published in 2012 or later. Eligibility assessment will be conducted independently and in duplicate at all review stages. Coded data will be analyzed along themes and stratified across discipline-specific literatures. Discussion: This first-of-its-kind scoping review will summarize available literature examining, documenting, or prioritizing legal concerns in health-related AI to advance law and policy reform(s). The review may also reveal discipline-specific concerns, priorities, and proposed solutions to the concerns. It will thereby identify priority areas that should be the focus of future reforms and regulatory options available to stakeholders in reform processes. Trial registration: This protocol was submitted to the Open Science Foundation registration database. See https://osf.io/zav7w.

References Powered by Scopus

Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework

20862Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation

19719Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

17480Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

AI-Powered Diagnosis of Skin Cancer: A Contemporary Review, Open Challenges and Future Research Directions

54Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Artificial intelligence & clinical nutrition: What the future might have in store

23Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The unintended consequences of artificial intelligence in paediatric radiology

8Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Da Silva, M., Horsley, T., Singh, D., Da Silva, E., Ly, V., Thomas, B., … Flood, C. M. (2022). Legal concerns in health-related artificial intelligence: a scoping review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01939-y

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 27

59%

Professor / Associate Prof. 9

20%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

11%

Researcher 5

11%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 19

49%

Nursing and Health Professions 8

21%

Social Sciences 7

18%

Business, Management and Accounting 5

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free