Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41294395›Full record

ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Vocabulary at the Living-Machine Interface: A Narrative Review of Shared Lexicon for Hybrid AI.

Andrew Prahl, Yan Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Andrew PrahlWee Kim Wee School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637718, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3675-3007
Yan LiWee Kim Wee School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637718, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5019-2114

Funding

National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid rise of bio-hybrid robots and hybrid human-AI systems has triggered an explosion of terminology that inhibits clarity and progress. To investigate how terms are defined, we conduct a narrative scoping review and concept analysis. We extract 60 verbatim definitions spanning engineering, human-computer interaction, human factors, biomimetics, philosophy, and policy. Entries are coded on three axes: agency locus (human, shared, machine), integration depth (loose, moderate, high), and normative valence (negative, neutral, positive), and then clustered. Four categories emerged from the analysis: (i) machine-led, low-integration architectures such as neuro-symbolic or "Hybrid-AI" models; (ii) shared, moderately integrated systems like mixed-initiative cobots; (iii) human-led, medium-coupling decision aids; and (iv) human-centric, low-integration frameworks that focus on user agency. Most definitions adopt a generally positive valence, suggesting a gap with risk-heavy popular narratives. We show that, for researchers investigating where living meets machine, terminological precision is more than semantics and it can shape design, accountability, and public trust. This narrative review contributes a comparative taxonomy and a shared lexicon for reporting hybrid systems. Researchers are encouraged to clarify which sense of Hybrid-AI is intended (algorithmic fusion vs. human-AI ensemble), to specify agency locus and integration depth, and to adopt measures consistent with these conceptualizations. Such practices can reduce construct confusion, enhance cross-study comparability, and align design, safety, and regulatory expectations across domains.

Indexed as

biohybridsconcept-mappingconceptualizationhuman–machine systemsHybrid-AI

Identifiers

PMID41294395
PMCPMC12649923

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.