ReviewAvicenna journal of medicine2026
Adopting AI Enhances Humanitarian Operations While Demanding Critical Trade-Offs.
Review in Avicenna journal of medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly impacting the cooperation sector, transforming how humanitarians are operating in the field. AI tools now allow for improved health diagnostics and quality services. In conflict areas, organizations are able to improve the efficiency of their analysis, and propose optimized data management processes for more multifactorial predictions. In a context where human and financial resources are limited, AI address the gaps to sustain emergency responses. In this commentary, we explore the trade-offs of adopting those tools and the ethical concerns their usages raise in a fragile environment. Security breach due to human errors and unregulated data management are a substantial risk to the humanitarian workers but also to the communities they aim to protect via their interventions. In this work, we touch upon humanitarians' concerns with this new technology, and reflect on balancing those with the benefits of accuracy of interventions. We argue that the humanitarian sector must not overlook these technologies, as failing to adopt them, risks widening inequalities in access to data-driven decision-making and leaving vulnerable systems further behind. At the same time, it is essential to establish meaningful safeguards and promote local ownership to ensure that AI enhances resilience, rather than reinforcing existing power imbalances.
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.