ReviewVox sanguinis2026
Artificial intelligence in blood donor management: A narrative review.
Review in Vox sanguinis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in blood donor management: A narrative review.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- AI-Driven Innovations in Transfusion Medicine: A Narrative Synthesis of Current Reviews.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Blood transfusions are vital in health care, yet maintaining an adequate and safe blood supply remains a significant challenge. To address blood donation-associated challenges, this review explores how integrating artificial intelligence (AI) technologies can improve donor recruitment, retention and management. For instance, robotic process automation can streamline repetitive administrative tasks, allowing staff to focus on more critical activities and improving efficiency. When augmented with AI techniques such as machine learning (ML) and natural language processing, it transitions from static rule-based automation to intelligent process automation. This combination enables dynamic decision making, handling unstructured data and optimizing workflows, thus extending its role in improving efficiency and decision making in donor management. ML algorithms can analyse large datasets to predict future donation patterns, identify donor behaviour trends and forecast blood demand more accurately. By applying these predictive models, blood banks can plan more effectively, avoid shortages and precisely target recruitment efforts. Additionally, AI-driven chatbots are gaining traction as a tool for improving communication with potential and existing donors, ultimately fostering better retention rates. Beyond routine donor management, AI also shows promise in supporting rare donor identification and targeted engagement strategies. While these innovations hold great potential, their implementation faces challenges such as data availability and quality, ethical issues concerning AI utilization, the necessity for clinical and technical expertise, a robust infrastructure, environmental impact and cybersecurity risks. Addressing these issues through practical strategies and thoughtful integration will be the key to ensuring the responsible, effective and sustainable adoption of AI in blood banking systems.
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.