ReviewThe Journal of allergy and clinical immunology2025
Current perspectives and challenges of using artificial intelligence in immunodeficiencies.
Review in The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Clinical Trials for Central Nervous System Injuries.Current neuropharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Proceedings of the second Artificial Intelligence in Primary Immunodeficiency (AIPI) meeting.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2026Article
- Automated data extraction model for the USIDNET registry: Bigger, faster, and better data collection.Journal of human immunity · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-, organoid-, and organ-on-chip-powered models to improve pre-clinical animal testing of vaccines and immunotherapeutics: potential, progress, and challenges.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Building alliances for early detection of immunodeficiencies: from primary care to hematology.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care is promising for screening and early diagnosis in settings that heavily rely on professional expertise, such as rare diseases like inborn errors of immunity (IEI). However, the development of AI algorithms for IEI and other rare diseases faces important challenges such as dataset sizes, availability and harmonization. Similarly, the implementation of AI-based strategies for screening and diagnosis of IEI in real-world scenarios is hampered by multiple factors including stakeholders' acceptance, ethical and legal constraints, and technologic barriers. Consequently, while the body of literature on AI-based solutions for early diagnosis of IEI continues to expand, clinical utility and widespread implementation remain limited. In this review, we provide an up-to-date comprehensive review of current applications and challenges facing AI use for IEI diagnosis and care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.