Roba Alsaigh1
Rashid Mehmood2*
Iyad Katib1
Xiaohui Liang3
Abdullah Alshanqiti2
Juan M. Corchado4,5,6
Simon See7- 1Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology (FCIT), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
- 2Faculty of Computer and Information Systems, Islamic University of Madinah, Madinah, Saudi Arabia
- 3Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States
- 4BISITE Research Group, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
- 5Air Institute, IoT Digital Innovation Hub, Salamanca, Spain
- 6Department of Electronics, Information and Communication, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka Institute of Technology, Osaka, Japan
- 7NVIDIA AI Technology Center, NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, United States
1 Introduction
In the rapidly evolving field of neuroinformatics, the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and neuroscience presents both unprecedented opportunities and formidable ethical challenges (Ienca and Ignatiadis, 2020; Dubois et al., 2023; Parellada et al., 2023; Scheinost et al., 2023). As AI technologies increasingly underpin neuroscientific research, it is crucial to establish robust governance frameworks that not only match the ambitious scope of this research but also adhere to stringent requirements for privacy and data sharing (Eke et al., 2022; Jwa and Martinez-Martin, 2024; Yuste, 2023; UK Government, 2018). This paper explores the urgent need to harmonize AI governance regulations with neuroinformatics practices, with a specific focus on the domains of data sharing and privacy.
This opinion article is grounded in a comprehensive analysis of over 4,000 research articles and AI regulation documents, supplemented by referencing over 100 pivotal articles and documents. It offers a critical examination of current AI governance frameworks and the existing challenges at the intersection of AI and neuroinformatics.1 Through this analysis, we systematically explore the state-of-the-art in neuroinformatics (Section 2), its challenges (Section 3), and the evaluation of AI governance (Section 4), identifying key alignments and gaps (Section 5). We conclude with strategic recommendations for better integration of these fields, aimed at enhancing research outcomes while ensuring privacy and fostering ethical practices (Section 6).
By integrating these diverse perspectives, the paper aims to spark a constructive dialogue among policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. The objective is to develop a cohesive framework that not only supports innovation in neuroinformatics but also operates under the umbrella of conscientious and effective AI governance, ensuring that neuroinformatics can continue its rapid advancement in a responsible and ethically sound manner.
2 State-of-the-art in neuroinformatics
Neuroinformatics has experienced transformative advancements through enhanced data sharing frameworks and technological innovations (Daidone et al., 2024; Weiner et al.2015; MacGillivray et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2023). These developments have significantly improved research efficiency and fostered innovation, particularly in complex areas such as autism (Parellada et al., 2023; Zucchini et al., 2023; Saponaro et al., 2022) and Alzheimer's disease (Yao et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022; Dubois et al., 2023).
One of the most notable advancements in neuroinformatics is the standardization of data sharing practices (Wang J. et al., 2023; Alzheimer Europe, 2021). Initiatives such as the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (Weiner et al., 2015a,b) and the Common Data Element (CDE). Project in epilepsy research (Loring et al., 2011) exemplify how standardized practices, including shared ontologies, common data elements, and standardized data formats, facilitate robust validation of results across diverse studies and enable large-scale, multi-center studies (Wang L. et al., 2023; MacGillivray et al., 2018; Yaseen et al., 2023). These elements are fundamental for integrating data from various sources, evident in the success of these projects (Ojo et al., 2020; Viejo et al., 2023). This integration is vital for the scalability and reproducibility of neuroinformatics research, leading to more reliable outcomes and faster scientific progress (Gurari et al., 2015; Baker et al., 2015; Sarwate et al., 2014).
Technological enhancements such as electronic health records and sophisticated data repositories have revolutionized how data is collected, managed, and shared within the field (Gentili et al., 2021; Leoratto et al., 2023). These technologies are crucial for supporting longitudinal studies and comprehensive data analyses necessary for understanding long-term outcomes of neurological conditions including traumatic brain injury (Vallmuur et al., 2023; Yaseen et al., 2023). Moreover, the role of international collaborations cannot be overstated. Initiatives such as the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) (Bateman et al., 2012) and global epilepsy research consortia (Galanopoulou et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2022) highlight the importance of pooling resources and expertise to tackle complex scientific questions, significantly enhancing the scope and impact of research efforts (Chou et al., 2022). Privacy-preserving technologies including differential privacy, encryption, anonymization, and blockchain have become integral to maintaining data confidentiality, while enabling expansive research and clinical applications (Zhang Z. et al., 2023; Yuste, 2023; Yang et al., 2023; Patel et al., 2023). Notably, federated learning and edge computing have gained attention for their role in supporting decentralized research models while ensuring privacy (Zou et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2024; Mitrovska et al., 2024). These technologies enable researchers to collaborate without compromising the security of sensitive data, crucial in neuroinformatics where privacy concerns are paramount (Gong et al., 2022; Selfridge et al., 2023; Cali et al., 2023).
3 Challenges in neuroinformatics
The landscape of neuroinformatics is fraught with complex challenges that stem from the integration of advanced data sharing, privacy, and security considerations (White et al., 2022; Sarwate et al., 2014). These challenges are crucial to address as they directly impact the efficacy and ethical alignment of neuroinformatics research (Ienca and Ignatiadis, 2020).
Resistance to data sharing remains a primary obstacle, often fuelled by concerns over data ownership and the potential for misuse (Tudosiu et al., 2022). This resistance necessitates clear policies that balance intellectual property rights with the need for open access to data (Redolfi et al., 2023). Additionally, the traditional academic reward system, which prioritizes individual achievements over collaborative efforts, further discourages open data sharing (Versalovic et al., 2023). Technical challenges such as managing and standardizing large, complex datasets add another layer of difficulty. Data heterogeneity, varying formats, and the necessity for robust metadata standards complicate data integration and utilization across various research platforms, making it challenging to achieve consistent and reliable research outcomes (Wang L. et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2024).
Privacy and security in neuroinformatics, particularly in neuroimaging, face unique challenges due to the technical complexity and resource demands of deploying privacy-preserving technologies such as federated learning and advanced encryption methods at scale (Xie et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2023; Ay et al., 2024; Zhang C. et al., 2023). Balancing privacy with data utility is critical, as techniques including anonymization must not compromise the usefulness of data for medical research and diagnosis (Patel et al., 2023; Cali et al., 2023). Continuously developing robust security measures is essential to protect data from adversarial attacks and unauthorized access (Zhao et al., 2024).
Advancing neuroinformatics also requires substantial resources and infrastructure, including secure data repositories, high-performance computing facilities, and efficient data-sharing platforms, which support large-scale initiatives and sophisticated data analysis (Zhu et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2023; Viejo et al., 2023). These resources enable not only cutting-edge research but also the implementation of technologies including blockchain and federated learning, which demand considerable computational power (Xia et al., 2023; Tozzi et al., 2023; Ay et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023). The significant investment and logistical challenges associated with these technologies often limit their widespread adoption, impacting the field's ability to ensure data privacy and manage large datasets effectively (Li et al., 2020).
4 AI governance regulations
AI governance guidelines across regions such as the European Union (EU), United States (USA), United Kingdom (UK), and China, along with global organizations, showcase diverse approaches to privacy preservation, data sharing, and ethical management of AI technologies (European Commission, 2021; POTUS, 2023; Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, 2016; Metcalfe et al., 2024; European Parliament, 2024).
The EU's AI Act regulates AI systems based on risk levels and emphasizes transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement to foster a human-centric AI ecosystem. It categorizes AI systems into various risk levels, with specific obligations designed to safeguard rights, health, safety, and promote innovation (European Parliament, 2024; European Union, 2024). The USA employs various frameworks and acts (The White House, 2023, 2022; National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2023; National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, 2021), such as the Executive Order on Safe and Trustworthy AI (POTUS, 2023), which focuses on AI standards, research, and ethical deployment. The AI Risk Management Framework by NIST outlines strategies to manage AI risks, emphasizing resilience, fairness, and transparency (NIST, 2023).
The UK's AI framework balances innovation with protection, governed by the AI Authority which ensures compliance with safety, transparency, fairness, and governance standards (Tobin, 2024; UK Government, 2024). This framework supports AI assessments and promotes international regulatory interoperability (House of Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, 2018; AI Safety Institute, 2024; Metcalfe et al., 2024). China emphasizes lawful data collection and stringent security measures within its AI regulations, presenting unique challenges for cross-border data transfers (The National New Generation Artificial Intelligence Governance Specialist Committee, 2021; The State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2017; Webster et al., 2017). These regulations are part of a broader strategy to balance technological innovation with ethical governance (China Briefing Team, 2021; Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, 2016; Roberts et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2020; Sheenhan, 2024).
While the EU, UK, and USA share a focus on promoting ethical standards and transparency (European Commission, 2024), the EU's comprehensive regulatory framework contrasts with the more decentralized, state-based approaches seen in the USA. The UK's strategy intermediates these approaches with a centralized authority that still encourages innovation (Tobin, 2024). China's approach emphasizes stringent security and data localization (Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, 2016), representing a distinct paradigm that requires careful navigation to align with Western data privacy norms and open AI research methodologies (Roberts et al., 2021). Organizations such as OECD (2024b,a) and UNESCO (2023) set global standards for ethical AI practices, advocating for human rights, transparency, and international cooperation, which aim to bridge regional differences and foster a unified approach to AI governance.
5 AI governance regulations and neuroinformatics: alignment, gaps, and challenges
The integration of neuroinformatics within global AI governance frameworks reveals a robust alignment, especially in privacy and data protection (Wang J. et al., 2023; Tozzi et al., 2023). Initiatives such as the ADNI (Weiner et al., 2015a,b) and the CDE Project in epilepsy research (Loring et al., 2011) demonstrate compliance with international privacy regulations such as the GDPR (European Union, 2016; Alzheimer Europe, 2021; White et al., 2022; Muchagata et al., 2020). These efforts underscore a commitment to safeguarding sensitive health data and adhering to high ethical standards (Alzheimer Europe, 2021). Ethical considerations in neuroinformatics strongly resonate with the principles outlined in frameworks such as the EU's AI Act (Stahl and Leach, 2023). Neuroinformatics practices, particularly in handling data related to genetic research and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), strive to align with these governance frameworks, ensuring informed consent (Bannier et al., 2021) and cognitive liberty (Schiliro et al., 2023) as central to their operations (Kulynych, 2002; Ligthart and Meynen, 2023; Hemptinne and Posthuma, 2023).
Despite these alignments, significant gaps persist, particularly in data standardization and interoperability (Daidone et al., 2024; Wang J. et al., 2023). The lack of unified data formats and protocols across international borders complicates efforts in global neuroinformatics collaborations (Zuk et al., 2020; Mulugeta et al., 2018). For instance, the variability in data management practices hinders the ability to maintain consistent transparency and accountability, making it challenging to comply fully with AI governance regulations across jurisdictions (Cheung et al., 2023; Yi et al., 2020). Additionally, data localization laws in countries, including China (Ministry of Science and Technology China, 2021; The National New Generation Artificial Intelligence Governance Specialist Committee, 2021; The State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2017; Webster et al., 2017), introduce complexities that may affect the unrestricted exchange of neuroinformatics data and adherence to international standards (Liu et al., 2022; Acar et al., 2023; Chou et al., 2022). These regulations highlight the need for careful navigation to facilitate global research collaborations, which are essential for advancing the field (Ownbey and Pekari, 2022; Russell et al., 2023).
Technologies including federated learning (Zhao et al., 2022; Sun and Wu, 2023) and blockchain (Song et al., 2023; Singh and Jagatheeswari, 2023; Yang et al., 2023) are emphasized in AI governance for enhancing data security (Kharat et al., 2014; Higuchi, 2013). However, neuroinformatics often struggles with the practical implementation of these technologies due to inconsistent regulatory support and the nascent state of these technologies in practical, research-focused environments (Zhu et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2023). The need for interdisciplinary collaboration is highlighted by the complex ethical, legal, and technical challenges in neuroinformatics (Farah, 2005; Blinowska and Durka, 2005; Wajnerman Paz, 2022). Current AI governance frameworks sometimes lack the flexibility to accommodate the rapid pace of technological advancements in neuroinformatics, necessitating ongoing revisions to ensure they remain relevant and effective (Jwa and Martinez-Martin, 2024; Yuste, 2023).
6 Discussion: harmonizing AI governance and neuroinformatics
Technological advancements such as federated learning, edge computing, and advanced anonymization techniques have shown substantial potential to align with stringent privacy regulations and foster ethical AI usage in neuroinformatics (Wang and Gooi, 2024; Zhang Z. et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2023). Despite their promise, the application of these technologies has been uneven, highlighting a gap between technological capability and its practical implementation. Investing in dynamic consent mechanisms and robust data governance practices is crucial (Eke et al., 2022). These innovations are indispensable for progressing neuroimaging research without compromising privacy or ethical standards, ensuring that technology implementation keeps pace with regulatory expectations and community trust (Jwa and Martinez-Martin, 2024; Yuste, 2023).
The preservation of cognitive privacy (Schiliro et al., 2023) and the management of informed consent are pivotal in neuroinformatics, requiring ongoing attention to align with evolving ethical standards (Kulynych, 2002; Ligthart and Meynen, 2023; Hemptinne and Posthuma, 2023). These considerations are crucial as they govern how sensitive data, especially neural data, is handled. Enhancing public awareness and promoting interdisciplinary research are vital for ensuring that stakeholders are well-informed and that technologies interacting with sensitive data are developed responsibly (Green, 2015). This approach supports a transparent dialogue between researchers and the public, fostering trust and facilitating ethical advancements in neuroinformatics (Wardlaw et al., 2011; Illes and Reiner, 2015).
Regulatory complexities, especially those arising from national security concerns and data localization laws, significantly impact international collaboration in neuroinformatics (Ownbey and Pekari, 2022; Russell et al., 2023). These laws can stifle the global exchange of data and insights, critical for advancing the field. Developing unified standards that cater to diverse regulatory environments, such as those in the USA (POTUS, 2023; The White House, 2023, 2022; National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2023; National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, 2021; NIST, 2023) and the EU (AI and Partners, 2024; Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights, 2019; European Commission, 2021; European Parliament, 2024), is essential. Such standards would not only streamline compliance processes but also enhance global research initiatives (Ownbey and Pekari, 2022; Russell et al., 2023) by promoting data interoperability across jurisdictions. Addressing these regulatory challenges is fundamental to fostering a collaborative international research environment that can drive innovation while respecting privacy and ethical norms.
To effectively address the identified gaps and enhance harmonization with AI governance regulations, it is imperative to:
• Develop global standards for neuroinformatics data sharing that address privacy, ethical use of data, and interoperability. These standards should be robust enough to facilitate data sharing across different domains, particularly in sensitive areas including healthcare.
• Invest in technologies such as differential privacy and federated learning. These investments would enable secure data sharing without compromising individual privacy and help navigate the evolving landscape of data protection regulations.
• Strengthen international collaboration to navigate regulatory disparities and facilitate cross-border data sharing, ensuring that neuroinformatics research can benefit from global data resources and expertise.
• Create specific governance frameworks that address the unique challenges posed by neurotechnological advancements and genetic research, including protections for cognitive privacy and robust consent mechanisms.
7 Conclusion
This article systematically examines neuroinformatics within global AI governance, exploring state-of-the-art practices and privacy challenges, assessing AI regulations, and offering strategic recommendations. It emphasizes the crucial need for standardized data sharing and robust ethical frameworks to enhance global research and ensure ethical innovation.
Author contributions
RA: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft. RM: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IK: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Investigation. XL: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Investigation. AA: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Investigation. JC: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Investigation. SS: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Investigation.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This article is derived from a research grant funded by the Research, Development, and Innovation Authority (RDIA), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with grant number 12615-iu-2023-IU-R-2-1-EI-.
Conflict of interest
SS was employed by NVIDIA Corporation.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^Due to the 2000-word limit for opinion articles, we cannot present this topic in full depth.
References
Acar, F., Maumet, C., Heuten, T., Vervoort, M., Bossier, H., Seurinck, R., et al. (2023). Review paper: reporting practices for task FMRI studies. Neuroinformatics 21, 221–242. doi: 10.1007/s12021-022-09606-2
Ay, S., Ekinci, E., and Garip, Z. (2024). A brain tumour classification on the magnetic resonance images using convolutional neural network based privacy-preserving federated learning. Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol. 34:23018. doi: 10.1002/ima.23018
Baker, B. T., Silva, R. F., Calhoun, V. D., Sarwate, A. D., and Plis, S. M. (2015). “Large scale collaboration with autonomy: decentralized data ICA,” in IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, MLSP 2015-Novem (Boston, MA: IEEE)
Bannier, E., Barker, G., Borghesani, V., Broeckx, N., Clement, P, Emblem, K. E., et al. (2021). The open brain consent: informing research participants and obtaining consent to share brain imaging data. Hum. Brain Mapp. 42, 1945–1951. doi: 10.1002/hbm.25351
Bateman, R. J., Xiong, C., Benzinger, T. L. S., Fagan, A. M., Goate, A., Fox, N., et al. (2012). Clinical and biomarker changes in dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 795–804. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202753
Blinowska, K. J., and Durka, P. J. (2005). Efficient application of internet databases for new signal processing methods. Clini. EEG Neurosci. 36, 123–130. doi: 10.1177/155005940503600212
Cali, R. J., Bhatt, R. R., Thomopoulos, S. I., Gadewar, S., Gari, I. B., Chattopadhyay, T., et al. (2023). The influence of brain MRI defacing algorithms on brain-age predictions via 3D convolutional neural networks. BioRxiv. doi: 10.1109/EMBC40787.2023.10340740
Cao, Z., McCabe, M., Callas, P., Cupertino, R. B., Ottino-González, J., Murphy, A., et al. (2023). Recalibrating single-study effect sizes using hierarchical bayesian models. Front. Neuroimag. 2:1138193. doi: 10.3389/fnimg.2023.1138193
Cheung, A. T. M., Nasir-Moin, M., Kwon, Y. J., Guan, J., Liu, C., Jiang, L., et al. (2023). Methods and impact for using federated learning to collaborate on clinical research. Neurosurgery 92, 431–438. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002198
China Briefing Team (2021). “The PRC personal information protection law (Final): a full translation,” in China Briefing.
Chou, A., Torres-Espin, A., Russell Huie, J., Krukowski, K., Lee, S., Nolan, A., et al. (2022). Empowering data sharing and analytics through the open data commons for traumatic brain injury research. Neurotrauma Rep. 3, 139–157. doi: 10.1089/neur.2021.0061
Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights (2019). Unboxing Artificial Intelligence: 10 Steps to Protect Human Rights, 1–29.
Daidone, M., Ferrantelli, S., Tuttolomondo, A., Daidone, M., and Daidone, M. (2024). Machine learning applications in stroke medicine: advancements, challenges, and future prospectives. Neural Regener. Res. 19, 769–773. doi: 10.4103/1673-5374.382228
Dubois, B., von Arnim, C. A. F., Burnie, N., Bozeat, S., and Cummings, J. (2023). Biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease: role in early and differential diagnosis and recognition of atypical variants. Alzheimer's Res. Therapy 15:1. doi: 10.1186/s13195-023-01314-6
Eke, D. O., Bernard, A., Bjaalie, J. G., Chavarriaga, R., Hanakawa, T., Hannan, A. J., et al. (2022). International data governance for neuroscience. Neuron 110, 600–612. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.11.017
European Commission (2021). The EU's Cybersecurity Strategy for the Digital Decade | Shaping Europe's Digital Future.
European Commission (2024). Joint Statement on Competition in Generative AI Foundation Models and AI Products - European Commission. Available at: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/about/news/joint-statement-competition-generative-ai-foundation-models-and-ai-products-2024-07-23_en
European Parliament (2024). European Parliament Legislative Resolution of 13 March 2024 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Laying down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union.
European Union (2016). Consolidated Text: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 9. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02016R0679-20160504.
European Union (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence and Amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 An. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689
Farah, M. J. (2005). Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.001
Galanopoulou, A. S., Löscher, W., Lubbers, L., O'Brien, T. J., Staley, K., Vezzani, A., et al. (2021). Antiepileptogenesis and disease modification: progress, challenges, and the path forward—report of the preclinical working group of the 2018 NINDS-sponsored antiepileptogenesis and disease modification workshop. Epilepsia Open 6, 276–296. doi: 10.1002/epi4.12490
Gentili, C., Cecchetti, L., Handjaras, G., Lettieri, G., and Cristea, I. A. (2021). The case for preregistering all region of interest (ROI) analyses in neuroimaging research. Eur. J. Neurosci. 53, 357–361. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14954
Gong, D., Hu, M., Yin, Y., Zhao, T., Ding, T., Meng, F., et al. (2022). Practical application of artificial intelligence technology in glaucoma diagnosis. J. Ophthalmol. (2022) 2022:5212128. doi: 10.1155/2022/5212128
Green, R. M. (2015). Neural technologies: the ethics of intimate access to the mind. Hastings Center Report 45, 36–37. doi: 10.1002/hast.516
Gurari, D., Theriault, D., Sameki, M., Isenberg, B., Pham, T. A., Purwada, A., et al. (2015). “How to collect segmentations for biomedical images? A benchmark evaluating the performance of experts, crowdsourced non-experts, and algorithms.,” in Proceedings - 2015 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2015 (Waikoloa, HI: IEEE), 1169–76.
Hemptinne, M. C., and Posthuma, D. (2023). Addressing the ethical and societal challenges posed by genome-wide association studies of behavioral and brain-related traits. Nat. Neurosci. 26, 932–41. doi: 10.1038/s41593-023-01333-4
House of Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence (2018). AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldai/100/100.pdf
Ienca, M., and Ignatiadis, K. (2020). Artificial intelligence in clinical neuroscience: methodological and ethical challenges. AJOB Neurosci. 11, 77–87. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2020.1740352
Illes, J., and Reiner, P. B. (2015). Advances in ethics for the neuroscience agenda. Neurobiol. Brain Dis. 8, 735–47. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-398270-4.00045-8
Jwa, A. S., and Martinez-Martin, N. (2024). Rationales and approaches to protecting brain data: a scoping review. Neuroethics 17, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s12152-023-09534-1
Kharat, A. T., Singh, A., Kulkarni, V. M., and Shah, D. (2014). Data mining in radiology. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging 24:97. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.134367
Kulynych, J. (2002). Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research: human subjects protection, medical privacy, and the public communication of research results. Brain Cogn. 50, 345–357. doi: 10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00518-3
Leoratto, T., Dias, D. R. C., Brandão, A. F., Iope, R. L., Brega, J. R. F., and de Paiva Guimarães, M. (2023). A software architecture based on the blockchain-database hybrid for electronic health records. Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci. 13956, 507–519. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-36805-9_33
Li, X., Gu, Y., Dvornek, N., Staib, L. H., Ventola, P., and Duncan, J. S. (2020). Multi-site FMRI analysis using privacy-preserving federated learning and domain adaptation: ABIDE results. Med. Image Anal. 65:101765. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2020.101765
Ligthart, S., and Meynen, G. (2023). “Offering neurotechnology to defendants: on vulnerability, voluntariness, and consent,” in Neurolaw in the Courtroom: Comparative Perspectives on Vulnerable Defendants.
Liu, Y., Yue, L., Xiao, S., Yang, W., Shen, D., and Liu, M. (2022). Assessing clinical progression from subjective cognitive decline to mild cognitive impairment with incomplete multi-modal neuroimages. Med. Image Analy. 75:102266. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2021.102266
Loring, D. W., Lowenstein, D. H., Barbaro, N. M., Fureman, B. E., Odenkirchen, J., Jacobs, M. P., et al. (2011). Common data elements in epilepsy research: development and implementation of the NINDS epilepsy CDE project. Epilepsia 52, 1186–1191. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03018.x
MacGillivray, T., McGrory, S., Pearson, T., and Cameron, J. (2018). Retinal imaging in early Alzheimer's disease. Neuromethods 137, 199–212. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7674-4_14
Metcalfe, S., Stringer, G., Wakeford, C., and Governance of Artificial Intelligence (2024). “Governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) third report of session 2023-24 report,” in House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Ministry of Science and Technology China (2021). Ethical Norms for New Generation Artificial Intelligence Released. 《新一代人工智能伦理规范》发布 -中华人民共和国科学技术部.” Available at: https://www.most.gov.cn/kjbgz/202109/t20210926_177063.html
Mishra, N. K., Engel, J., Liebeskind, D. S., Sharma, V., Hirsch, L., Kasner, S. E., et al. (2022). International Post Stroke Epilepsy Research Consortium (IPSERC): a consortium to accelerate discoveries in preventing epileptogenesis after stroke. Epilep. Behav. 127:108502. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.108502
Mitrovska, A., Safari, P., Ritter, K., Shariati, B, and Fischer, J. K. (2024). Secure federated learning for Alzheimer's disease detection. Front. Aging Neurosci. 16:1324032. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2024.1324032
Muchagata, J., Teles, S., Vieira-Marques, P., Abrantes, D., and Ferreira, A. (2020). Dementia and MHealth: on the way to GDPR compliance. Commun. Comp. Inform. Sci. 1211:395–411. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-46970-2_19
Mulugeta, L., Drach, A., Erdemir, A., Hunt, C. A., Horner, M., Ku, J. P., et al. (2018). Credibility, replicability, and reproducibility in simulation for biomedicine and clinical applications in neuroscience. Front. Neuroinform. 12:359627. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2018.00018
National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (2021). “National security commission on artificial intelligence,” in Final Report - National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2023). “AI accountability policy request for comment,” in US Department of Commerce.
NIST (2023). “Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0),” in Managing Information Risk.
OECD (2024a). Governance and Privacy Synergies and Areas of International Co-Operation, no. 22. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/06/ai-data-governance-and-privacy_2ac13a42/2476b1a4-en.pdf
OECD (2024b). “Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence,” in Artificial Intelligence in Society. Available at: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449#:~:text=The Recommendation aims to foster,Principles%2C drawn from the Recommendation
Ojo, O. O., Abubakar, S. A., Iwuozo, E. U., Nwazor, E. O., Ekenze, O. S., Farombi, T., et al. (2020). The Nigeria Parkinson disease registry: process, profile, and prospects of a collaborative project. Movem. Dis. 35, 1315–1322. doi: 10.1002/mds.28123
Ownbey, M. R., and Pekari, T. B. (2022). Acute mild traumatic brain injury assessment and management in the austere setting-a review. Military Med. 187, E47–51. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usab104
Parellada, M., Andreu-Bernabeu, A., Burdeus, M., José Cáceres, A. S., Urbiola, E., Carpenter, L. L., et al. (2023). In search of biomarkers to guide interventions in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review. Am. J. Psychiatry 180, 23–40. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.21100992
Patel, R., Provenzano, D., and Loew, M. (2023). Anonymization and validation of three-dimensional volumetric renderings of computed tomography data using commercially available T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-based algorithms. J. Med. Imag. 10:6. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.10.6.066501
POTUS (2023). “Executive order on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence,” in Whitehouse Website. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
Redolfi, A., Archetti, D., De Francesco, S., Crema, C., Tagliavini, F., Lodi, R., et al. (2023). Italian, European, and international neuroinformatics efforts: an overview. Eur. J. Neurosci. 57, 2017–2039. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15854
Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V., and Floridi, L. (2021). The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI Soc. 36, 59–77. doi: 10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2
Russell, E. R., Lyall, D. M., and Stewart, W. (2023). HEalth and dementia outcomes following traumatic brain injury (HEAD-TBI): protocol for a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 13:7. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073726
Saponaro, S., Giuliano, A., Bellotti, R., Lombardi, A., Tangaro, S., Oliva, P., et al. (2022). Multi-site harmonization of MRI data uncovers machine-learning discrimination capability in barely separable populations: an example from the ABIDE dataset. NeuroImage. Clini. 35:103082. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103082
Sarwate, A. D., Plis, S. M., Turner, J. A., Arbabshirani, M. R, and Calhoun, V. D. (2014). Sharing privacy-sensitive access to neuroimaging and genetics data: a review and preliminary validation. Front. Neuroinform. 8:79221. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2014.00035
Scheinost, D., Onofrey, J., Dadashkarimi, J., Eklund, A., and Ståhle, J. (2023). Label-efficient deep semantic segmentation of intracranial hemorrhages in CT-scans. Front. Neuroimag. 2:1157565. doi: 10.3389/fnimg.2023.1157565
Schiliro, F., Moustafa, N., Razzak, I., and Beheshti, A. (2023). DeepCog: a trustworthy deep learning-based human cognitive privacy framework in industrial policing. IEEE Trans. Intellig. Transp. Syst. 24, 7485–7493. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2022.3166631
Selfridge, A. R., Spencer, B. A., Abdelhafez, Y. G., Nakagawa, K., Tupin, J. D., and Badawi, R. D. (2023). Facial anonymization and privacy concerns in total-body PET/CT. J. Nucl. Med. 64, 1304–1309. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.122.265280
Sheenhan, M. (2024). Tracing the Roots of China's AI Regulations - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Carnegie Endowment for Internatiional Peace. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/02/tracing-the-roots-of-chinas-ai-regulations?lang=en
Singh, C. E. J., and Jagatheeswari, A. (2023). Secured blind digital certificate and lamport merkle cloud assisted medical image sharing using blockchain. Multimed. Tools Appl. 82, 9323–9342. doi: 10.1007/s11042-022-13719-w
Song, W., Fu, C., Zheng, Y., Cao, L., and Tie, M. (2023). A practical medical image cryptosystem with parallel acceleration. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 14, 9853–9867. doi: 10.1007/s12652-021-03643-6
Stahl, B. C., and Leach, T. (2023). Assessing the ethical and social concerns of artificial intelligence in neuroinformatics research: an empirical test of the European Union Assessment list for trustworthy AI (ALTAI). AI and Ethics 3, 745–767. doi: 10.1007/s43681-022-00201-4
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (2016). Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China.
Sun, L., and Wu, J. (2023). A scalable and transferable federated learning system for classifying healthcare sensor data. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 27, 866–877. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2022.3171402
The National New Generation Artificial Intelligence Governance Specialist Committee (2021). “Ethical norms for new generation artificial intelligence (English Translation by Center for Security and Emerging Technology),” in PRC Ministry of Science and Technology Website. Available at: Http://Www.Most.Gov.Cn/Kjbgz/202109/T20210926_177063.Html. (2021). https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/ethical-norms-for-new-generation-artificial-intelligence-released/
The State Council of the People's Republic of China (2017). The State Council Issued Notice on the Development Plan of the New Generation of Artificial Intelligence (Guofa [2017] No. 35). Available at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-07/20/content_5211996.htm
The White House (2022). “Blueprint for an AI bill of rights - making automated systems work for the american people,” in White House.
The White House (2023). “National artificial intelligence research and development strategic plan 2023,” in Update Univ. S C. Dep. Music, 1–54.
Tobin, J. (2024). “Artificial intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL],” in Library Briefing HL Bill 11, 2023−2047.
Tozzi, A. E., Croci, I., Voicu, P., Dotta, F., Colafati, G. S., Carai, A., et al. (2023). A systematic review of data sources for artificial intelligence applications in pediatric brain tumors in europe: implications for bias and generalizability. Front. Oncol. 13:1285775. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1285775
Tudosiu, P. D., Pinaya, W. H. L., Graham, M. S., Borges, P., Fernandez, V., Yang, D., et al. (2022). “Morphology-preserving autoregressive 3D generative modelling of the brain,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 13570 LNCS, 66–78.
UK Government (2018). Data Protection Act 2018. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted
UK Government (2024). A Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation: Government Response - GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ai-regulation-a-pro-innovation-approach-policy-proposals/outcome/a-pro-innovation-approach-to-ai-regulation-government-response
Vallmuur, K., Mitchell, G., McCreanor, V., Droder, B., Catchpoole, J., Eley, R., et al. (2023). Electric Personal MObility DEvices Surveillance (E-MODES) study: injury presentations to emergency departments in Brisbane, Queensland. Injury 54, 1524–1531. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.04.036
Versalovic, E., Klein, E., Goering, S., Ngo, Q., Gliske, K., Boulicault, M., et al. (2023). Deep brain stimulation for substance use disorders? An exploratory qualitative study of perspectives of people currently in treatment. J. Addict. Med. 17:e246. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000001150
Viejo, G., Levenstein, D., Carrasco, S. S., Mehrotra, D., Mahallati, S., Vite, G. R., et al. (2023). Pynapple, a toolbox for data analysis in Neuroscience. Elife 12:e85786. doi: 10.7554/eLife.85786.3.sa3
Wajnerman Paz, A. (2022). Is your neural data part of your mind? Exploring the conceptual basis of mental privacy. Minds Mach. 32, 395–415. doi: 10.1007/s11023-021-09574-7
Wang, J., Wang, J., Wang, S., and Zhang, J. (2023). Deep learning in pediatric neuroimaging. Displays 80:102583. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2023.102583
Wang, L., Ambite, J. L., Appaji, A., Bijsterbosch, J., Dockes, J., Herrick, R., et al. (2023). NeuroBridge: a prototype platform for discovery of the long-tail neuroimaging data. Front. Neuroinform. 17:1215261. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2023.1215261
Wang, T., and Gooi, H. B. (2024). Distribution-balanced federated learning for fault identification of power lines. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 39, 1209–1223. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3267463
Wardlaw, J. M., O'Connell, G., Shuler, K., DeWilde, J., Haley, J., Escobar, O., et al. (2011). ‘Can it read my mind?' – what do the public and experts think of the current (mis)uses of neuroimaging? PLoS ONE 6:10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025829
Webster, G., Creemers, R., Kania, E., and Triolo, P. (2017). Full Translation: China's ‘New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan'. Standford: Standford University. Available at: https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/full-translation-chinas-new-generation-artificial-intelligence-development-plan-2017/
Weiner, M. W., Veitch, D. P., Aisen, P. S., Beckett, L. A., Cairns, N. J., Cedarbaum, J., et al. (2015a). Impact of the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative, 2004 to 2014. Alzheimer's & Demen. 11, 865–884. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2015.04.005
Weiner, M. W., Veitch, D. P., Aisen, P. S., Beckett, L. A., Cairns, N. J., Cedarbaum, J., et al. (2015b). 2014 Update of the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative: a review of papers published since its inception. Alzheim. Dement. 11, e1–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2014.11.001
White, T., Blok, E., and Calhoun, V. D. (2022). Data sharing and privacy issues in neuroimaging research: opportunities, obstacles, challenges, and monsters under the bed. Hum. Brain Mapp. 43:278. doi: 10.1002/hbm.25120
Wu, F., Lu, C., Zhu, M., Chen, H., Zhu, J., Yu, K., et al. (2020). Towards a New Generation of Artificial Intelligence in China. Nat. Mach. Intellig. 2, 312–16. doi: 10.1038/s42256-020-0183-4
Xia, K., Duch, W., Sun, Y., Xu, K., Fang, W., Luo, H., et al. (2023). Privacy-preserving brain-computer interfaces: a systematic review. IEEE Trans. Comp. Social Syst. 10, 2312–2324. doi: 10.1109/TCSS.2022.3184818
Xie, G., Wang, J., Huang, Y., Lyu, J., Zheng, F., Zheng, Y., et al. (2023). Fedmed-Gan: Federated Domain Translation on Unsupervised Cross-Modality Brain Image Synthesis.
Yang, C., Yuan, P., and Feng, Z. (2023). “Simulation of blockchain information protection prediction model based on machine learning,” in 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Robot Systems (AIARS), 56–60.
Yang, Y., Xie, H., Cui, H., and Yang, C. (2024). “FedBrain: federated training of graph neural networks for connectome-based brain imaging analysis,” in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 214−225.
Yao, W., Shen, Y., Nicolls, F, and Wang, S. Q. (2023). Conditional diffusion model-based data augmentation for Alzheimer's prediction. Commun. Comp. Inform. Sci. 1869, 33–46. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-5844-3_3
Yaseen, A., Robertson, C., Navarro, J. C., Chen, J., Heckler, B., DeSantis, S. M., et al. (2023). Integrating, harmonizing, and curating studies with high-frequency and hourly physiological data: proof of concept from seven traumatic brain injury data sets. J. Neurotrauma 40, 2362–75. doi: 10.1089/neu.2023.0023
Yi, L., Zhang, J., Zhang, R., Shi, J., Wang, G., and Liu, X. (2020). SU-Net: an efficient encoder-decoder model of federated learning for brain tumor segmentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Sci. 12396, 761–773. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-61609-0_60
Yu, X., Zhou, M., Asgarinejad, F., Gungor, O., Aksanli, B., and Rosing, T. (2023). “Lightning talk: private and secure edge ai with hyperdimensional computing,” in Proceedings - Design Automation Conference.
Yuste, R. (2023). Advocating for neurodata privacy and neurotechnology regulation. Nat. Prot. 18, 2869–75. doi: 10.1038/s41596-023-00873-0
Zhang, C., Meng, X., Liu, Q., Wu, S, Wang, L., and Ning, H. (2023). FedBrain: a robust multi-site brain network analysis framework based on federated learning for brain disease diagnosis. Neurocomputing 559:126791. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2023.126791
Zhang, Y., Lanfranchi, W., Wang, X., Zhou, M., and Yang, P. (2022). “Modeling Alzheimer's disease progression via amalgamated magnitude-direction brain structure variation quantification and tensor multi-task learning,” in Proceedings - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, BIBM, 2735–42.
Zhang, Z., Xu, X., and Xiao, F. (2023). LGAN-DP: a novel differential private publication mechanism of trajectory data. Future Generat. Comp. Syst. 141, 692–703. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2022.12.011
Zhao, Q., Lee, K., Liu, J., Huzaifa, M., Yu, X., and Rosing, T. (2022). “FedHD: federated learning with hyperdimensional computing,” in Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing And Networking.
Zhao, Y., Feng, S., Li, C., Song, R., Liang, D., and Chen, X. (2024). Source-free domain adaptation for privacy-preserving seizure prediction. IEEE Trans. Indust. Inform. 20, 2787–2798. doi: 10.1109/TII.2023.3297323
Zhu, Y., Mao, H., Zhu, Y., Huang, Z., Li, Y., Zhang, Z., et al. (2023). Brain-inspired methods for achieving robust computation in heterogeneous mixed-signal neuromorphic processing systems. Neuromorphic Comp. Eng. 3:034002. doi: 10.1088/2634-4386/ace64c
Zou, J., Li, C., Wu, R., Pei, T., Zheng, H., and Wang, S. (2023). Self-Supervised Federated Learning for Fast MR Imaging.
Zucchini, C., Serpe, C., Sanctis, P., Ghezzo, A., Visconti, P., Posar, A., et al. (2023). TLDc domain-containing genes in autism spectrum disorder: new players in the oxidative stress response. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24:21. doi: 10.3390/ijms242115802
Keywords: neuroinformatics, privacy, data sharing, ethical AI, AI governance, regulatory frameworks, data standardization, interoperability
Citation: Alsaigh R, Mehmood R, Katib I, Liang X, Alshanqiti A, Corchado JM and See S (2024) Harmonizing AI governance regulations and neuroinformatics: perspectives on privacy and data sharing. Front. Neuroinform. 18:1472653. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2024.1472653
Received: 29 July 2024; Accepted: 04 December 2024;
Published: 17 December 2024.
Edited by:
Mike Hawrylycz, Allen Institute for Brain Science, United StatesReviewed by:
Alexander Leichtle, University Hospital of Bern, SwitzerlandCopyright © 2024 Alsaigh, Mehmood, Katib, Liang, Alshanqiti, Corchado and See. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Rashid Mehmood, Ui5NZWhtb29kJiN4MDAwNDA7Z21haWwuY29t; Ui5NZWhtb29kJiN4MDAwNDA7aXUuZWR1LnNh