Systematic Review on the Ethics of Collecting and Using Respiratory Sound Datasets for the Development of AI-Based Diagnostic Models in the Biomedical Field

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) for respiratory disease diagnostics has intensified reliance on large-scale respiratory sound datasets, raising complex ethical challenges related to privacy, consent, ownership, and data governance. This systematic review examines the ethical integrity of studies involving cough, breath, and lung sound datasets used for AI-based biomedical applications between 2015 and 2025. Using the PRISMA 2020 framework, 52 eligible studies were identified across major academic databases and evaluated through multidimensional ethical criteria, including transparency of consent processes, adequacy of anonymization, governance mechanisms, dataset licensing, and bias mitigation. The findings reveal significant ethical inconsistencies: less than half of the studies reported clear consent procedures; anonymization techniques were largely insufficient due to the biometric nature of respiratory acoustics; and dataset licensing commonly lacked clarity regarding commercial use. Substantial demographic and clinical biases were also observed, posing risks of inequitable diagnostic performance across population subgroups. The review concludes that current practices exhibit a structural gap between technological innovation and ethical maturity, necessitating stronger governance, standardized licensing, dynamic consent models, and traceable data provenance. Strengthening ethical infrastructures is essential to ensure that AI-enabled respiratory diagnostics advance in a manner that upholds participant rights, clinical safety, and public trust.

artificial intelligence; respiratory sound datasets; biomedical ethics; privacy and consent; data governance; anonymization; diagnostic bias; PRISMA systematic review

1. J. Andreu-Perez, A. Pérez-Zúñiga, and C. C. Y. Poon, “Artificial intelligence and biomedical signal processing: Transforming respiratory sound analysis for disease detection,” IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 123–142, 2021. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2021.3051224 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. J. Han, Z. Wang, and S. Zhao, “Deep learning approaches for cough sound-based COVID-19 detection: A review,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 75, p. 103591, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2022.103591 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. M. Pahar, M. Klopper, R. Warren, and T. Niesler, “COVID-19 cough classification using machine learning and global smartphone recordings,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 135, p. 104572, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104572 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. D. Perna and A. Tagarelli, “Deep auscultation: Predicting respiratory anomalies and diseases via recurrent neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2019, pp. 2467–2474. doi: 10.1109/BIBM47256.2019.8983260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. M. Nerini, F. Viani, and A. Zorzi, “Respiratory sound datasets as biometric signals: Ethical and privacy implications,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 139, p. 104379, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104379 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. D. Leslie, A. Mazumder, A. Peppin, M. K. Wolters, and A. Hagerty, “Does ‘AI’ stand for augmenting inequality in the era of COVID-19 healthcare?,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n304, 2021. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Y. A. de Montjoye, L. Radaelli, V. K. Singh, and A. S. Pentland, “Unique in the shopping mall: On the reidentifiability of credit card metadata,” Science, vol. 347, no. 6221, pp. 536–539, 2018. doi: 10.1126/science.1256297 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. L. Floridi et al., “AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations,” Minds and Machines, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–34, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s11023-022-09617-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. P. Voigt and A. von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Practical Guide, Springer, 2017. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57959-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. C. Kuner, L. A. Bygrave, and C. Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, 2nd ed., Oxford Univ. Press, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. V. Rathod, S. Patel, and P. Bhattacharya, “Ethical considerations in the collection and use of respiratory sound data for AI-based diagnosis,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, p. 1123892, 2023. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1123892 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. L. Seyyed-Kalantari, H. Zhang, M. B. A. McDermott, I. Y. Chen, and M. Ghassemi, “Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in underrepresented patient populations,” Nature Medicine, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 2176–2182, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01595-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jobin, M. Ienca, and E. Vayena, “The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 389–399, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. European Medicines Agency (EMA), Guideline on Quality Documentation for Medicinal Products Containing Drug Substances Produced by Recombinant DNA Technology, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.ema.europa.eu [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. M. Page et al., “PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. J. Cohen, “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 1960. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Excel Documentation: Data Validation and Extraction Tools, Redmond, WA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. J. Samuel and G. Derrick, “Commercializing open data in healthcare AI: Ethical tensions and governance solutions,” Bioethics, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 844–858, 2022. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13054 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Y. A. de Montjoye et al., “Reidentification and anonymity in the digital era,” Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Reddy, S. Allan, S. Coghlan, and P. Cooper, “A governance model for the application of AI in health care,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 707–713, 2022. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocab221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD AI Principles: Recommendations of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD Legal Instruments, 2021. doi: 10.1787/aa7d0b74-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. L. Floridi, The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design, Oxford Univ. Press, 2021. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198833635.001.0001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Z. Obermeyer, B. Powers, C. Vogeli, and S. Mullainathan, “Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations,” Science, vol. 366, no. 6464, pp. 447–453, 2019. doi: 10.1126/science.aax2342 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) Action Plan, Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.fda.gov/media/145022/download [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Dignum, Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way, Springer, 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-30371-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. H. Lauer, “Moral responsibility and AI decision systems: A review of accountability challenges,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 25, pp. 53–69, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10676-022-09663-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. European Medicines Agency (EMA), “Guideline on AI in medical software regulation,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.ema.europa.eu [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Singapore Government, Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.pdpc.gov.sg [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “OECD Council Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence,” OECD Legal Instruments, 2021. doi: 10.1787/aa7d0b74-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. J. Kaye et al., “Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 141–146, 2015. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. J. Zhao, Q. Ni, and H. Wang, “Blockchain-based audit trail system for medical data provenance and integrity verification,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 8609–8619, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TII.2021.3068701 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet