Ranks distinct AI gain and problem claims from the published record. Scores reward impact, independent source strength, scale, confidence, and recency.
By April 13 2026, researchers reported results from 21 semi-structured interviews with local journalists in Germany examining use of data and AI, challenges in interaction, and perceived opportunities for AI-supported reporting systems.
On 2026-05-12, The Guardian reported on a new poll released by the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US. The poll found overwhelming support among US workers for pro-worker policies on artificial intelligence, including a specific proposal that a human be the final decision maker on issues affecting individuals, with 95% support for that requirement and more than nine out of ten supporting union-backed AI policies generally.
The source is a review of artificial neural network applications to pattern recognition. It describes an early era of simplified ANN use that expanded into multiple domains and reports progress surveyed in the literature, while highlighting persistent technical obstacles that prompted a call for state-of-the-art updates.
This paper conducts a semi-systematic evaluation that analyzes and compares 22 ethics guidelines released in recent years following advances in research, development and application of AI systems. The guidelines are described as comprising normative principles and recommendations.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare four AI software programs-ChatGPT-5, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini (V 2.5), and OpenEvidence-in generating comprehensive dental treatment plans for minimally destructed and severely mutilated teeth using identical clinical inputs. Material and methods Ten anonymized clinical cases, each consisting of 1 intraoral photograph and 1 corresponding periapical radiograph, were independently submitted to each AI software program using a standardized prompt.
Most artificial intelligence (AI) models used in radiology are black boxes-they produce predictions without explaining the basis of their outputs, raising concerns about clinical safety, accountability, and trust. To address this, a growing body of methods has been developed to help clinicians understand and evaluate AI predictions.
By November 2025, a review in Molecular Biomedicine synthesized multi-omics strategies integrating genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics, with emphasis on machine learning and deep learning for horizontal and vertical integration, including single-cell and spatial technologies.
As of the August 2026 commentary, AI was increasingly integrated into oncology for detection, risk stratification, treatment planning, and documentation. The authors reviewed evidence that these systems can reproduce or amplify disparities and examined technical sources of bias and competing statistical definitions of fairness.