Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42404813›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Beyond uncertainty in modern active learning for trustworthy AI.

Ridha Horchani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. 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

1 author.

Ridha HorchaniDepartment of Physics, College of Science, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Active learning (AL) is a central response to the annotation bottleneck in modern artificial intelligence: when labels are expensive, a learner should query for the most useful forms of supervision rather than indiscriminately acquiring labels. However, contemporary AL is no longer a unified field organized around a small set of stable query principles. It is fragmented across acquisition strategies, supervision granularities, operational regimes, and evaluation protocols, making reported gains difficult to compare and, in some cases, to trust. This study offers a critical review and synthesis of modern AL, with particular attention to deep learning and deployment-oriented applications across medical imaging, computer vision, natural language processing, systematic review automation, recommender systems, anomaly detection, and structured prediction. The review makes three contributions. First, it proposes a four-axis taxonomy organized around acquisition logic, supervision granularity, operational regime, and evaluation realism. Second, it compares major acquisition families, including uncertainty-based, disagreement-based, expected-improvement, representativeness-based, diversity-aware, cost-aware, and shift-aware approaches, highlighting their assumptions, strengths, computational trade-offs, and recurrent failure modes. Third, it distills design principles and an actionable research agenda for trustworthy AL, emphasizing annotation cost, redundancy control, robustness under distribution shift, fairness, human oversight, and workflow-grounded evaluation. The central argument is that the main challenge for AL has shifted from identifying informative samples to designing supervision-allocation pipelines whose gains remain reliable across realistic annotation workflows, heterogeneous human effort, and deployment constraints.

Indexed as

active learningannotation costdata-efficient learningevaluation realismhuman-in-the-loop machine learningsupervision allocationtrustworthy AI

Identifiers

PMID42404813
PMCPMC13328378

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.