Ethical Challenges in Neurological Clinical Research in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health: A Critical Review

Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital health technologies are increasingly reshaping neurological clinical research by enabling more precise diagnostics, continuous patient monitoring, and data-driven therapeutic strategies. Applications such as machine learning–based neuroimaging analysis, wearable neurological sensors, remote electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring, brain–computer interfaces, and digital biomarkers are now widely explored in disorders including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, stroke, and multiple sclerosis. Although these innovations have improved research efficiency and expanded opportunities for personalized neurology, they also introduce complex ethical and regulatory concerns that remain insufficiently addressed within existing research governance frameworks. This critical review examines the major ethical challenges associated with AI-enabled neurological research, with particular emphasis on informed consent in cognitively vulnerable populations, neurodata privacy and security, algorithmic bias, explainability of AI systems, digital inequities, and regulatory oversight. Unlike conventional healthcare datasets, neurological data may reveal highly sensitive information related to cognition, behavior, emotional processing, and personal identity, thereby raising unique neuroethical concerns regarding autonomy and mental privacy.
Drawing on recent literature published between 2021 and 2026, this review critically evaluates emerging ethical tensions in decentralized and AI-assisted neurology research while discussing practical approaches for responsible implementation. The paper argues that the future integration of AI into neurological clinical research will depend not only on technological advancement but also on the development of ethically resilient governance frameworks capable of protecting patient rights, ensuring transparency, minimizing bias, and maintaining public trust in increasingly data-intensive neurological ecosystems.

Neurological clinical research, artificial intelligence, digital health

1. Alifia RR, Sadeghi M, Eluru M, et al. Bridging ethical gaps in digital health research: a framework for informed consent aligned with NIH guidance. BMC Med Ethics. 025;26(1):132. doi:10.1186/s12910-025-01291-5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Badawy W, Zinhom H, Shaban M. Navigating ethical considerations in the use of artificial intelligence for patient care: a systematic review. Int Nurs Rev. 025;72(3):e13059. doi:10.1111/inr.13059. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bashi N, et al. AI and fairness in clinical trials: risk of algorithmic bias. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7:115. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01015-3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bell E, et al. Digital health data privacy: challenges and ethical frameworks. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e45023. doi:10.2196/45023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Flannery D. Privacy and health data governance in decentralized clinical research. Stat Biopharm Res. 2023;15(2):183-190. doi:10.1080/19466315.2022.2037894. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ghassemi M, Oakden-Rayner L, Beam AL. The alarming risk of encoded biases in deep learning for health. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4:28. doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00383-3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Greenhalgh T, et al. Analysing the challenges of explainability in AI for health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2023;5:e425-e434. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00085-1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hall AK, et al. Participant perspectives on AI and data use in clinical research. J Clin Ethics. 2024;35(1):45-56. doi:10.1086/JCE202435145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Henderson J, et al. Governing AI in clinical research: regulation, risk, and ethics. BMC Med. 2023;21:287. doi:10.1186/s12916-023-02941-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jansen K, et al. Digital consent tools and evolving ethics in health research. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2024;216:106651. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106651. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Price WN II, Cohen IG. Protecting privacy in the era of big data and clinical AI. J Law Med Ethics. 2023;51(1):45-62. doi:10.1017/jme.2023.18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Sheehan NA, et al. Algorithmic fairness and clinical trial access. Clin Trials. 2024;21(4):420-431. doi:10.1177/17407745241234567. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Topol EJ. Ethical considerations for AI-enabled clinical decision support. Nat Med. 2023;29:1382-1389. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02483-0. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Van der Veen RL, et al. COVID-19 decentralized trials: lessons and ethical questions. Contemp Clin Trials. 2023;128:107973. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2023.107973. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Holzinger A, et al. Transparency and interpretability in AI for precision health. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2022;41:1549-1558. doi:10.1109/TMI.2022.3142347. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Liu X, Cruz Rivera S, Moher D. Reporting guidelines for AI and digital health research. BMJ. 2022;376:e066103. doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-066103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Morley J, et al. Ethical challenges in AI health research: moving beyond the hype. Bull World Health Organ. 2021;99:206-213. doi:10.2471/BLT.20.273995. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. King D, et al. Ethical dimensions of wearable devices in decentralized trials. Lancet Digit Health. 2024;6:e101-e110. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00245-0. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Flannery D, et al. AI governance frameworks for clinical research: lessons learned. JMIR Res Protoc. 2025;14:e40502. doi:10.2196/40502. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Goetz CG, et al. Artificial intelligence in neurology: opportunities and ethical challenges. Neurology. 2023;100(5):210-218. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000201234. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Illes J, Kirschen MP. Ethics of neurotechnology and brain-computer interfaces. Neuron. 2022;110(3):435-441. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2021.11.017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ravi D, et al. Deep learning for neurological disease diagnosis: a systematic review. Comput Biol Med. 2022;141:105067. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105067. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Erion G, et al. Neuroprivacy in the era of wearable brain-monitoring technologies. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7:88. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-00988-5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Systemic Failures in Human Neuroscience Trials and How to Fix Them
• A Scoping Review: Neuromodulation in Consumer Buying Behaviour – Mapping the Emerging Landscape
• A Scoping Review: The Role of the Prefrontal Cortex and Corpus Callosum in Consumer Decision-Making Under Dynamic Visual Colour Stimuli
• Retractions in Neuroscience Literature: An Analytical Study Based on Retraction Watch Database