Evidence Hub

Systematic review of machine learning approaches for predicting sickle cell crisis and mortality risk at the climate-health nexus

Kama MO, Ajah IA, Ikegwu AC, Obayi AA, Uloko FO, Ogbuagu IC

BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026

Abstract

Background: Sickle cell anemia (SCA) is a severe genetic blood disorder characterized by recurrent vaso-occlusive crises and increased mortality, with the greatest burden occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Climatic and environmental conditions, including temperature variability, humidity, rainfall, air pollution, and seasonal changes, have been associated with disease exacerbation. However, the extent to which these factors have been incorporated into predictive models remains unclear. This study systematically reviews the application of machine learning (ML) models for predicting SCA crises and mortality in relation to climate and environmental factors.

Methodology: The PRISMA guidelines were used, and 34 peer-reviewed studies published between 2005 and 2026 were analyzed to identify the climate variables, ML approaches employed, and predictive performance. The reviewed studies applied a range of ML techniques, including artificial neural networks, random forests, support vector machines, decision trees, logistic regression, and deep learning models. Temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind speed, air quality indicators, and seasonal patterns were the most frequently examined environmental variables.

Results: The findings indicate that most existing models rely predominantly on clinical and demographic data, with limited integration of climate information and inadequate representation of high-burden regions, especially Sub-Saharan Africa. Studies incorporating…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free