Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41152861›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Artificial intelligence in the identification and prediction of adverse transfusion reactions(ATRs) and implications for clinical management: a systematic review of models and applications.

Mahdie ShojaeiBaghini, Mohammad Mehdi Ghaemi, Alihasan Ahmadipour

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mahdie ShojaeiBaghiniMedical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-9857-7347
Mohammad Mehdi GhaemiModeling in Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-6427-2740
Alihasan AhmadipourFaculty of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. alihasanahmadipour@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0001-8209-9571

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite advances in patient safety, adverse transfusion reactions (ATRs) continue to occur in clinical settings and remain a primary focus of hospital hemovigilance committees. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for detecting and preventing these complications. The objective of this study is to synthesize the evidence on the applications of AI in identifying and predicting ATRs, and to examine the existing evidence regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of employing these tools in active clinical management.

methodsThis systematic review (SR) was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. English-language articles published within the last decade, focusing on the application of AI in the Identification and Prediction of ATRs and Implications for Clinical Management, were retrieved from the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and subsequently analyzed. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-AI tool, and the findings are presented descriptively.

resultsThis SR showed that in the 24 included studies, AI models were primarily applied across four main focal areas: transfusion risks and outcomes, risk and moderating factors, transfusion volume and intensity, and classification and extraction of ATRs. In the included studies, the most essential model evaluation metrics were AUROC and Sensitivity, each reported in nine studies, followed by Accuracy and F1-Score, each reported in five studies. Among the studies, the Random Forest (RF) model was used more frequently than other models. Moreover, none explicitly addressed the development, implementation, or clinical evaluation of an active management system based on AI. Clinically, most studies focused on transfusion-related complications such as mortality, bleeding, and morbidity. The majority of the studies were conducted in the field of Hematology, followed by cardiology, surgery, and ICU units.

conclusionsBased on the interpretation of results, individual patient factors and transfusion volume play a pivotal role in the occurrence of ATRs. Implementing safe transfusion strategies, including the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) integrated with electronic health records (EHR) and personalized medicine approaches, alongside adherence to ethical considerations and patient privacy protection, is essential in future research. This study also identified two significant research gaps: first, the lack of research on the implementation or clinical evaluation of AI-based active management systems for ATRs; and second, the analysis of population groups revealed that research has been predominantly focused on adults, highlighting a gap concerning vulnerable populations, particularly pediatric patients.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceTransfusion ReactionHumansAdverse effectsAdverse transfusion reactions (ATRs)Artificial intelligence (AI)Blood transfusionHemovigilancePatient safety

Identifiers

PMID41152861
PMCPMC12560389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.