Malik, Momin

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are beginning to enhance key workflows across blood banking (BB) and transfusion medicine (TM), including donor engagement, inventory forecasting, immunohaematology interpretation, haemovigilance and clinical decision support. These tools can extract signals from large, diverse datasets to improve efficiency, consistency and timeliness of care while enabling more proactive patient blood management. At the same time, TM is uniquely sensitive to safety and trust, so the field must pair innovation with disciplined validation and governance. This review surveys emerging applications and distils a balanced ethics and oversight framework tailored to TM and BB practice. Core elements include outcome‐focused validation and continuous monitoring; targeted fairness testing where biological or scientific plausibility suggests subgroup differences; layered transparency that distinguishes transparency, interpretability and explainability; and privacy by design with proportionate consent. We emphasize human oversight at every step: clinicians and laboratorians evaluate, monitor and troubleshoot models, perform tasks AI cannot, integrate multiple inputs to make decisions and interact with AI through guardrails such as intended‐use statements, confidence thresholds and clear override pathways. Accountability is shared across users, service directors, institutions and regulators. When implemented with these safeguards, AI can reduce preventable errors, improve resource allocation and support more equitable access to safe transfusion. The goal is principled pragmatism that protects patients and donors while enabling timely adoption of well‐validated tools.

Machine learning (ML) methods are proliferating in scientific research. However, the adoption of these methods has been accompanied by failures of validity, reproducibility, and generalizability. These failures can hinder scientific progress, lead to false consensus around invalid claims, and undermine the credibility of ML-based science. ML methods are often applied and fail in similar ways across disciplines. Motivated by this observation, our goal is to provide clear recommendations for conducting and reporting ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist (recommendations for machine-learning-based science). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed on the basis of a consensus of 19 researchers across computer science, data science, mathematics, social sciences, and biomedical sciences. REFORMS can serve as a resource for researchers when designing and implementing a study, for referees when reviewing papers, and for journals when enforcing standards for transparency and reproducibility.

Background Attempts to understand biosocial phenomena using scientific methods are often presented as value-neutral and objective; however, when used to reduce the complexity of open systems such as epidemics, these forms of inquiry necessarily entail normative considerations and are therefore fashioned by political worldviews (ideologies). From the standpoint of poststructural theory, the character of these representations is at most limited and partial. In addition, these modes of representation (as stories) do work (as technologies) in the service of, or in resistance to, power. Methods We focus on a single Ebola case cluster from the 2013–2016 outbreak in West Africa and examine how different disciplinary forms of knowledge production (including outbreak forecasting, active epidemiological surveillance, post-outbreak serosurveys, political economic analyses, and ethnography) function as Story Technologies. We then explore how these technologies are used to curate ‘data,’ analysing the erasures, values, and imperatives evoked by each. Results We call attention to the instrumental—in addition to the descriptive—role Story Technologies play in ordering contingencies and establishing relationships in the wake of health crises. Discussion By connecting each type of knowledge production with the systems of power it reinforces or disrupts, we illustrate how Story Technologies do ideological work. These findings encourage research from pluriversal perspectives and advocacy for measures that promote more inclusive modes of knowledge production.

Abstract Objective Artificial intelligence (AI) models may propagate harmful biases in performance and hence negatively affect the underserved. We aimed to assess the degree to which data quality of electronic health records (EHRs) affected by inequities related to low socioeconomic status (SES), results in differential performance of AI models across SES. Materials and Methods This study utilized existing machine learning models for predicting asthma exacerbation in children with asthma. We compared balanced error rate (BER) against different SES levels measured by HOUsing-based SocioEconomic Status measure (HOUSES) index. As a possible mechanism for differential performance, we also compared incompleteness of EHR information relevant to asthma care by SES. Results Asthmatic children with lower SES had larger BER than those with higher SES (eg, ratio = 1.35 for HOUSES Q1 vs Q2–Q4) and had a higher proportion of missing information relevant to asthma care (eg, 41% vs 24% for missing asthma severity and 12% vs 9.8% for undiagnosed asthma despite meeting asthma criteria). Discussion Our study suggests that lower SES is associated with worse predictive model performance. It also highlights the potential role of incomplete EHR data in this differential performance and suggests a way to mitigate this bias. Conclusion The HOUSES index allows AI researchers to assess bias in predictive model performance by SES. Although our case study was based on a small sample size and a single-site study, the study results highlight a potential strategy for identifying bias by using an innovative SES measure.