Cross-corpus research synthesis
AI in Healthcare
Clinical decision support, medical devices, diagnostic AI.
Synthesised deterministically from 9 articles that engage this theme. Empirical consensus: settled. Full theme article: /wiki/healthcare. Machine-readable: /wiki/synthesis.json.
Cross-jurisdiction stances (3 govern, 7 engage)
| Instrument | Verdict | Provision excerpt / citation |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | governs | AI systems intended to be used to evaluate the eligibility of natural persons for essential public assistance benefits and services, including healthcare services… (paraphrase) Annex III §5(a) (high-risk: essential services) + MDR overlap |
| Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, Trustworthy AI | implicit | §8 + HHS strategy |
| UK Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation (White Paper) | implicit | MHRA software-as-medical-device |
| OMB Memorandum M-24-10 (Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of AI) | implicit | Attachment 1 examples include healthcare access decisions as rights-impacting; minimum practices apply |
| California SB 243: Companion Chatbots | implicit | an operator must maintain a protocol for preventing the production of suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm content, including providing a notification that refers the user to crisis service providers when the user expresses such ideation (paraphrase) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22602(b) (added by SB 243) — operator must maintain a protocol preventing production of suicidal-ideation/self-harm content and referring the user to crisis-service providers, published on its website; § 22603 reports referral data to the Office of Suicide Prevention |
| UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence | governs | “Member States should endeavour to employ effective AI systems for improving human health and protecting the right to life, including mitigating disease outbreaks” Policy Area 'Health and Social Well-being', para 121 — employ effective AI for health and the right to life |
| Italy Law No. 132/2025 on Artificial Intelligence (Legge 23 settembre 2025, n. 132) | governs | “L'introduzione di sistemi di intelligenza artificiale nel sistema sanitario non può selezionare e condizionare l'accesso alle prestazioni sanitarie secondo criteri discriminatori. … la decisione … è sempre rimessa agli esercenti la professione medica.” Art. 7 — AI must not condition access to healthcare on discriminatory criteria (¶2); patient right to be informed of AI use (¶3); the therapeutic decision is always reserved to the physician (¶5). Arts. 8–10 add research, data-processing and electronic-health-record provisions. |
Evidence convergence
Sources the corpus cites for this theme across multiple articles — a scientometric consensus signal computed from inline prose citations (the more articles independently cite a source, the more load-bearing it is for this theme). 18 sources are cited by ≥2 articles.
- 6×Unregulated large language models produce medical device-like output — cited by 6 articles
- 5×Identifying Algorithmic Decision Subjects' Needs for Meaningful Contestability — cited by 5 articles
- 3×arxiv:2504.18236 — cited by 3 articles
- 3×Current state of Food and Drug Administration-approved artificial intelligence/machine learning medical devices: pathways, transparency, and evidence gaps — cited by 3 articles
- 3×A general framework for governing marketed AI/ML medical devices — cited by 3 articles
- 3×An interdisciplinary account of the terminological choices by EU policymakers ahead of the final agreement on the AI Act: AI system, general purpose AI system, foundation model, and generative AI — cited by 3 articles
- 3×Defending Compute Thresholds Against Legal Loopholes — cited by 3 articles
- 3×Algorithm-facilitated discrimination: a socio-legal study of the use by employers of artificial intelligence hiring systems — cited by 3 articles
- 3×Global Initiative on AI for Health (GI-AI4H): strategic priorities advancing governance across the United Nations — cited by 3 articles
- 2×Hallucination — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Missing the Mark: Adoption of Watermarking for Generative AI Systems in Practice and Implications Under the New EU AI Act — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Facial recognition technology in law enforcement: a scoping review of existing empirical studies — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Artificial intelligence and synthetic biology: biosecurity risks, dual-use concerns, and governance pathways — cited by 2 articles
- 2×The EU model of AI governance: regulating artificial intelligence through law and policy — cited by 2 articles
- 2×A future role for health applications of large language models depends on regulators enforcing safety standards — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Global perspectives on regulating facial recognition technology utilization for criminal justice arrests — cited by 2 articles
- 2×On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Machines of justice: A systematic review of AI applications in policing and criminal justice — cited by 2 articles