AI in Diagnosing and Treating Sports Injuries

Challenges and Limitations

Despite its potential, the integration of AI in sports medicine presents challenges. Model performance can be limited by data quality and representativeness, as many AI systems are trained on datasets that may not generalize across diverse populations. Ethical considerations, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and transparency of decision-making, also warrant attention. Moreover, AI should be viewed as an adjunct to, not a replacement for, clinical judgment.

Legal Challenges
As clinicians increasingly integrate AI into sports medicine, it holds promise for clinical applications but also presents a complex array of legal and ethical challenges. The high-stakes nature of athletic performance, combined with the sensitive handling of personal health data, creates a unique environment where ethical, legal, or technological missteps can have far-reaching consequences. From accountability in AI-driven diagnostics to concerns about data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential erosion of clinical autonomy, the adoption of these technologies is far from straightforward. Responsible implementation, therefore, demands more than technical validation; it requires a comprehensive ethical and legal framework to guide the safe, equitable, and transparent use of AI in sports injury care⁽⁹⁾.

1. Accountability and Liability
AI-driven diagnostic tools introduce significant complexity in determining liability. In instances where an incorrect diagnosis results in patient harm, it remains unclear whether legal responsibility lies with the clinician, the software developer, or the healthcare institution that deployed the technology. This ambiguity is compounded by the “black box” nature of many AI models, which often lack transparency in their decision-making processes⁽¹⁰⁾. Authors from the University of Bristol in the UK explore this issue, particularly in the context of negligence claims arising from AI-assisted clinical decisions. They argue that, under current legal frameworks, clinicians typically bear the brunt of liability, even when relying on AI tools. However, they also advocate for recognizing a duty of care on the part of software developers, given their role in shaping clinical outcomes through algorithm design and implementation⁽¹¹⁾.

Similarly, authors from Harvard University discuss the broader implications of AI failure in healthcare. They outline how liability could extend beyond the individual clinician to include AI developers and the institutions responsible for integrating these systems into clinical practice. The degree of responsibility may depend on the nature of the AI error and the oversight, or lack thereof, exercised by human operators⁽⁹⁾.

These discussions highlight the pressing need for a well-defined legal framework that can effectively allocate responsibility among clinicians, developers, and institutions, thereby ensuring patient protection. At the same time, innovation continues to be done responsibly.

2. Regulation of Adaptive Systems
Artificial intelligence systems that continuously evolve through new data inputs pose a challenge for traditional regulatory frameworks. Unlike static medical devices, adaptive algorithms may deviate from their originally approved functionality, complicating oversight by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency⁽¹²⁾. For example, if a sports club implements a proprietary AI model that updates itself based on in-season data and then adjusts the outputs accordingly after implementation. It may trigger concerns from the club’s medical advisory board regarding a lack of transparency and oversight, as the updated model was not subject to a new regulatory evaluation. 

3. Data Privacy and Informed Consent
The collection and analysis of sensitive biometric and clinical data must comply with legal standards such as the General Data Protection Regulation and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Beyond compliance, ethical practice demands transparency and informed consent, especially when developers use it to train AI algorithms⁽¹³⁾.

The growing use of wearable technology in U.S. college athletics has sparked ethical and legal concerns, particularly regarding the collection and dissemination of athletes’ biometric data. In several cases, universities have entered into commercial agreements with corporate partners that allow access to physiological metrics gathered from student-athletes, often without explicit informed consent. These practices raise significant concerns about data ownership, transparency, and the potential for exploitation, particularly given that such biometric information is not clearly protected under existing federal health privacy laws, such as HIPAA. Moreover, once acquired, this data can be repurposed or sold to third parties, further complicating issues of governance and accountability in collegiate sport^(14,15).

“…presents a complex array of legal and ethical challenges.”

Ethical Challenges

1. Bias and Discrimination
Artificial intelligence algorithms may perpetuate or exacerbate healthcare disparities if trained on biased or incomplete datasets. Racial bias in healthcare AI systems affects resource allocation, demonstrating that such bias can significantly impact patient outcomes⁽¹⁶⁾. In sports, similar risks exist if models underperform in specific populations (e.g., female athletes or para-athletes).

2. Clinical Autonomy and Trust
The increasing reliance on AI can challenge the traditional role of clinical expertise. Artificial intelligence recommendations that are not explainable or transparent may undermine clinician confidence and patient trust, particularly when decisions deviate from standard care⁽¹⁷⁾.

3. Commercial Exploitation of Health Data
The commodification of athlete health data, often facilitated through partnerships with tech companies, raises ethical questions about data ownership and use. There is a risk that stakeholders may prioritize performance optimization over athlete welfare, particularly in professional and youth sports⁽¹⁰⁾.

Balancing Innovation with Responsibility

Emerging trends suggest broader applications of AI in sports medicine, including virtual health assistants, robot-assisted therapy, and digital twins—virtual models of athletes that simulate training outcomes and optimize performance. As AI systems evolve, regulatory frameworks and interdisciplinary collaboration will be crucial to ensure the safe and effective deployment of these systems. Integration with electronic health records, standardization of data formats, and clinician training will be critical enablers of this transformation. The path forward requires collaboration among clinicians, technologists, ethicists, and policymakers to ensure AI systems are not only effective but also equitable and accountable. Principles such as transparency, explainability, and athlete-centered care must underpin the deployment of AI in sports medicine.

“The path forward requires collaboration among clinicians, technologists, ethicists, and policymakers...”

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence is poised to revolutionize the diagnosis, management, and prevention of sports injuries. By augmenting clinical capabilities, AI can facilitate earlier detection, individualized treatment, and better outcomes for athletes. It holds transformative potential in sports injury care, but its integration cannot come at the cost of legal clarity or ethical integrity. Addressing the challenges of bias, data privacy, clinician autonomy, and regulatory oversight is crucial to developing AI systems that balance both performance goals and the well-being of athletes. A responsible and ethically grounded approach is imperative to realize the full benefits of AI in sports medicine.

References

1. J Digit Imaging. 2019 Dec;32(6):980-986. doi: 10.1007/s10278-019-00193-4.
2. Radiology. 2018;289(1):160-169. doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172322
3. Sports Medicine, 52(9), 2271–2282. 
4. Sensors (Basel). 2018;18(3):873. 
5. NBA and Second Spectrum AI Analytics. NBA.com (Accessed April 2025).
6. Sports Engineering, 24(1), 1–15
7. Sensors (Basel). 2023 Dec 3;23(24):9799. 
8. JMIR Med Inform. 2024 Apr 3:12:e52289
9. Artif Intell Healthc. 2020;295-336.
10. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):37–43.
11. Med Law Int. 2020;20(2):139–160.
12. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56.
13. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(2):303–341.
14. J of High Tech Law. 2023. Available at: sites.suffolk.edu/jhtl/2023/10/25/wearable-technology-in-college-athletics-creates-potential-privacy-violations-with-the-distribution-of-student-athlete-biometric-data/ 
15. Weaver K. Names, Images, Likenesses… and Data? Forbes. 2020 Jan 1. Available at: www.forbes.com/sites/karenweaver/2020/01/01/names-images-likenessesand-data/
16. Science. 2019;366(6464):447–453.
17. Hastings Cent Rep. 2019;49(1):15–21.
18. Lupton D. The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking. Polity Press; 2016.