Juan Carlos Muria-Tarazón

This paper presents a quantitative vision of the study of artificial intelligence risk assessment in business based on a bibliometric analysis of the most relevant publications. The main goal is to determine whether the risk assessment of artificial intelligence systems used in businesses is really a subject of increasing interest and to identify the most influential and productive sources of scientific research in this area. Data were collected from the Web of Science Core Collection, one of the most complete and prestigious databases. Regarding the temporal evolution of publications and citations this study evidences, this research subject shows rapid growth in the number of publications (at a compound annual rate of 31.20% from 2018 to 2024 inclusive), showing its high attraction for researchers, responding to the need to implement systematic risk assessment processes in the organizations using AI to mitigate potential harms, ensure compliance with regulations, and enhance artificial intelligence systems’ trust and adoption. Especially after the surge of large language models like ChatGPT or Gemini, AI is revolutionizing the dynamics of human–computer interaction using natural language, video, and audio. However, as the scientific community initiates rigorous studies on AI risk assessment within organizational contexts, it is imperative to consider critical issues such as data privacy, ethics, bias, and hallucinations to ensure the successful integration and interaction of AI systems with human operators. Furthermore, this paper constitutes a starting point, including for any researcher who wants to be introduced to this topic, indicating new challenges that should be dealt by researchers interested in AI and hot topics, in addition to the most relevant literature, authors, and journals about this research subject.

In this work, the authors analyze virtual reality rehabilitation research on strokes in the past 8 years (2015–2022) from the perspective of Information Technology governance (how these initiatives sustain and extend organization strategy), using the “Four Ares” technique that is widely used in other sectors with a proven track record. Are we doing the right things? Are we doing them the right way? Are we getting them done well? Are we getting the benefits? Methods: The bibliography was exhaustively selected for evaluation considering these four questions, covering different aspects of existing evidence on this topic. Results: Some evidence of positive outcomes in patients with a stroke was found, and different approaches, types of measurement, platforms, and methods were analyzed to discern the present situation of research and recommendations. Conclusions: Positive outcomes on motor functions and on motivation and patient adherence to the treatment suggests this is an interesting field to research and examine in the future. Homogeneity on research design and larger samples are key to improving evidence and identifying the best strategies to use.