Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges
A recent United Kingdom survey reports that 63% of the adult population is uncomfortable with allowing personal data to be used to improve healthcare and is unfavorable to artificial intelligence (AI) systems replacing doctors and nurses in tasks they usually perform Another study, conducted in Germany, found that medical students-the doctors of tomorrow-overwhelmingly buy into the promise of AI to improve medicine (83%) but are more skeptical that it will establish conclusive diagnoses in, for
Record details
Published: 6 November 2018
Source: OpenAlex
Category: Research
Topics: Healthcare · Children & education
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Attitudes and perceptions of UK medical students towards artificial intelligence and radiology: a multicentre survey
OpenAlex · 5 February 2020
Which professional (non-technical) competencies are most important to the success of graduate veterinarians? A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review: BEME Guide No. 38
OpenAlex · 4 May 2016
Future of Work
UK Contracts Finder — AI procurement · 20 April 2026
Opinion: Making School Lunches Healthy Is Great – If Kids Will Eat What’s on the Tray
The 74 (education AI) · 7 August 2026
Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-led chatbot services in healthcare: A mixed-methods study
OpenAlex · 1 January 2019
Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices
OpenAlex · 1 January 2019
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (6 November 2018), “Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges,” evidence record 8271, https://ethics.ai/record/8271 (originally published by OpenAlex).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.