ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
AI for Intelligent Transportation Systems: A Systematic Review of Applications in Demand-Responsive Transport.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI for Intelligent Transportation Systems: A Systematic Review of Applications in Demand-Responsive Transport.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Demand-Responsive Transport (DRT) has emerged as a flexible public transport strategy to improve accessibility, service coverage, and operational efficiency in contexts where conventional fixed-route services are inefficient, insufficient, or difficult to operate. In parallel, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and particularly Machine Learning (ML), has increasingly been investigated for predictive tasks relevant to DRT planning and operations, including demand forecasting, travel-time estimation, service reliability assessment, and decision support. This study presents a systematic literature review of ML-based predictive analytics in public-transport-oriented DRT services. After the screening and eligibility process, the included studies were analyzed according to predictive task, data source, modelling technique, validation strategy, performance metrics, and implementation-related challenges; methodological quality, risk of bias (RoB), and applicability were assessed using a PROBAST+AI-based framework. The results show that research in this field has expanded rapidly in recent years and is moving from isolated demand prediction models towards more integrated frameworks linking prediction, optimization, and service planning. However, the evidence remains fragmented, with substantial heterogeneity in data sources, spatial and temporal scales, modelling approaches, and evaluation procedures. The quality assessment showed generally favorable predictor quality and low outcome-related RoB, but analysis-related RoB was high in just over half of the studies, mainly because independent evaluation and validation accounting for temporal, spatial, or simulation-induced dependence were often lacking. Most studies provided retrospective, offline, simulation-based, or conceptual decision-support evidence, whereas prospective field deployment, external validation, and post-implementation monitoring were rarely or insufficiently documented. This review therefore provides a structured synthesis of current ML research in DRT and identifies priorities for future work, including improved reproducibility, stronger validation, robust baseline comparisons, multiple evaluation metrics, greater interpretability, and prospective assessment under real-world operational conditions.
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.