Intersectionality is a theoretical framework rooted in the premise that human experience is jointly shaped by multiple social positions (e.g. race, gender), and cannot be adequately understood by considering social positions independently. Used widely in qualitative studies, its uptake in quantitative research has been more recent. To characterize quantitative research applications of intersectionality from 1989 to mid-2020, to evaluate basic integration of theoretical frameworks, and to identify innovative methods that could be applied to health research. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles indexed within Scopus, Medline, ProQuest Political Science and Public Administration, and PsycINFO. Original English-language quantitative or mixed-methods research or methods papers that explicitly applied intersectionality theoretical frameworks were included. Experimental studies on perception/stereotyping and measures development or validation studies were excluded. We extracted data related to publication, study design, quantitative methods, and application of intersectionality. 707 articles (671 applied studies, 25 methods-only papers, 11 methods plus application) met inclusion criteria. Articles were published in journals across a range of disciplines, most commonly psychology, sociology, and medical/life sciences; 40.8% studied a health-related outcome. Results supported concerns among intersectionality scholars that core theoretical tenets are often lost or misinterpreted in quantitative research; about one in four applied articles (26.9%) failed to define intersectionality, while one in six (17.5%) included intersectional position components not reflective of social power. Quantitative methods were simplistic (most often regression with interactions, cross-classified variables, or stratification) and were often misapplied or misinterpreted. Several novel methods were identified. Intersectionality is frequently misunderstood when bridging theory into quantitative methodology. Further work is required to (1) ensure researchers understand key features that define quantitative intersectionality analyses, (2) improve reporting practices for intersectional analyses, and (3) develop and adapt quantitative methods.

Intersectionality recognizes that in the context of sociohistorically shaped structural power relations, an individual's multiple social positions or identities (e.g., gender, ethnicity) can interact to affect health-related outcomes. Despite limited methodological guidance, intersectionality frameworks have increasingly been incorporated into epidemiological studies, both to describe health disparities and to examine their causes. This study aimed to advance methods in intersectional estimation of binary outcomes in descriptive health disparities research through evaluation of 7 potentially intersectional data analysis methods: cross-classification, regression with interactions, multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity (MAIHDA), and decision trees (CART, CTree, CHAID, random forest). Accuracy of estimated intersection-specific outcome prevalence was evaluated across 192 intersections using simulated data scenarios. For comparison we included a non-intersectional main effects regression. We additionally assessed variable selection performance amongst decision trees. Example analyses using National Health and Nutrition Examination Study data illustrated differences in results between methods. At larger sample sizes, all methods except for CART performed better than non-intersectional main effects regression. In smaller samples, MAIHDA was the most accurate method but showed no advantage over main effects regression, while random forest, cross-classification, and saturated regression were the least accurate, and CTree and CHAID performed moderately well. CART performed poorly for estimation and variable selection. Sensitivity analyses examining the bias-variance tradeoff suggest MAIHDA as the preferred unbiased method for accurate estimation of high-dimensional intersections at smaller sample sizes. Larger sample sizes are more imperative for other methods. Results support the adoption of an intersectional approach to descriptive epidemiology.

While Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises significant enhancements for Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs), the opacity of many AI models remains a major barrier to clinical adoption, primarily due to interpretability and trust challenges. Explainable AI (XAI) seeks to bridge this gap by making model reasoning understandable to clinicians, but technical XAI solutions have too often failed to address real-world clinician needs, workflow integration, and usability concerns. This study synthesizes persistent challenges in applying XAI to CDSS—including mismatched explanation methods, suboptimal interface designs, and insufficient evaluation practices—and proposes a structured, user-centered framework to guide more effective and trustworthy XAI-CDSS development. Drawing on a comprehensive literature review, we detail a three-phase framework encompassing user-centered XAI method selection, interface co-design, and iterative evaluation and refinement. We demonstrate its application through a retrospective case study analysis of a published XAI-CDSS for sepsis care. Our synthesis highlights the importance of aligning XAI with clinical workflows, supporting calibrated trust, and deploying robust evaluation methodologies that capture real-world clinician–AI interaction patterns, such as negotiation. The case analysis shows how the framework can systematically identify and address user-centric gaps, leading to better workflow integration, tailored explanations, and more usable interfaces. We conclude that achieving trustworthy and clinically useful XAI-CDSS requires a fundamentally user-centered approach; our framework offers actionable guidance for creating explainable, usable, and trusted AI systems in healthcare.

Our increasingly connected world continues to face an ever-growing number of network-based attacks. An Intrusion Detection System (IDS) is an essential security technology used for detecting these attacks. Although numerous Machine Learning-based IDSs have been proposed for the detection of malicious network traffic, the majority have difficulty properly detecting and classifying the more uncommon attack types. In this paper, we implement a novel hybrid technique using synthetic data produced by a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) to use as input for training a Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) model. Our GAN model is trained on the NSL-KDD dataset, a publicly available collection of labeled network traffic data specifically designed to support the evaluation and benchmarking of IDSs. Ultimately, our findings demonstrate that training the DRL model on synthetic datasets generated by specific GAN models can result in better performance in correctly classifying minority classes over training on the true imbalanced dataset.

Wearable robotic braces have the potential to improve rehabilitative therapies for patients suffering from musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Ideally, a quantitative assessment of health would be incorporated into rehabilitative devices to monitor patient recovery. The purpose of this work is to develop a model to distinguish between the healthy and injured arms of elbow trauma patients based on electromyography (EMG) data. Surface EMG recordings were collected from the healthy and injured limbs of 30 elbow trauma patients while performing 10 upper-limb motions. Forty-two features and five feature sets were extracted from the data. Feature selection was performed to improve the class separation and to reduce the computational complexity of the feature sets. The following classifiers were tested: linear discriminant analysis (LDA), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF). The classifiers were used to distinguish between two levels of health: healthy and injured (50% baseline accuracy rate). Maximum fractal length (MFL), myopulse percentage rate (MYOP), power spectrum ratio (PSR) and spike shape analysis features were identified as the best features for classifying elbow muscle health. A majority vote of the LDA classification models provided a cross-validation accuracy of 82.1%. The work described in this paper indicates that it is possible to discern between healthy and injured limbs of patients with MSK elbow injuries. Further assessment and optimization could improve the consistency and accuracy of the classification models. This work is the first of its kind to identify EMG metrics for muscle health assessment by wearable rehabilitative devices.