Evidence Hub

AI-Augmented Hematological Signatures for Equitable Detection of Hereditary Hemolytic Anemia Carriers: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ali NT, Abdullah RS, Mehdi MAH, Ali GS, Ali HM, Gubran ANM, Gubran ANM, Al-Abd NM

Human mutation, 2026

133,498 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) augmentation of routine hematological tests offers a promising strategy to improve hereditary hemolytic anemia (HHA) carrier detection in premarital screening, especially in resource‐limited settings. HHA in this review specifically encompasses β‐thalassemia, α‐thalassemia, sickle cell disease (including HbS and HbC variants), and other hemoglobinopathies with autosomal recessive inheritance patterns requiring carrier detection for prevention. These conditions share hemolytic phenotypes but differ in hematological signatures, necessitating separate subgroup analyses. This global systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy, equity implications, and implementation challenges of AI‐augmented complete blood count (CBC), blood smear, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) for HHA carrier identification. We systematically searched seven databases and included 85 studies (n = 133,498 participants, 23 countries). AI‐augmented screening achieved a pooled sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CI: 91.3%–94.1%) and specificity of 91.5% (89.7%–93.0%), representing a 12.3% sensitivity improvement over conventional interpretation (p < 0.001). However, significant geographic disparities were observed: sensitivity in Sub‐Saharan Africa was 86.5% compared with 94.8% in the Middle East (p < 0.001), partly due to algorithmic bias against African HbS/HbC variants and infrastructural barriers. Deep learning models achieved the highest sensitivity…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 133,498 participants or records.

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