Artificial Intelligence (AI) can predict judicial decisions, but can it explain how they are legally jusitified, and can judges trust it? A Perspective in National Science Review argues that legal computing requires higher interpretability and reliability, and judicial values should be embedded into model and algorithm design. It outlines a value-guided framework within a “society–law–ethics–algorithms–data” system and identifies three scenario-specific applications: legislation, feedback-validated enforcement and trustworthy, human-centered adjudication. The Perspective further suggests that combining empirical learning with formal reasoning may offer a particularly promising path forward.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has published guidance for pediatricians on the safe, equitable, and effective use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), acknowledging that the rapidly emerging tools offer both promise and risk.

JMIR Publications released four feature News and Perspectives articles this week, covering developments in smart textiles, PMOS treatment in India, the FDA’s TEMPO pilot for regulating AI-enabled devices, and the ethical quandaries of using online forums in research.

A new Northwestern Medicine study has found patient navigators — trained guides who help patients access care and resources while working alongside the healthcare team — can ease the often challenging transition to motherhood for low-income pregnant individuals, leading to better health in their postpartum period and more consistent primary care for years to come. The goal is to increase patients' independence and comfort with engaging with the healthcare system. In cancer care, patient navigation has received widespread adoption, and is even funded by Medicaid, but has been largely underused and understudied in postpartum care. These findings lay the groundwork for future research and potential funding for patient navigation.

The human longevity field is rapidly expanding, with companies developing interventions intended to slow or reverse cellular aging, prolong life, and extend healthspan. However, there are growing concerns that longevity interventions fall in a gray area for regulators. In a Policy Forum, Camila Strassle and colleagues argue that longevity products in the United States generally fall within existing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, despite claims to the contrary. They suggest that the more fundamental obstacle is instead the difficulty in measuring whether an intervention provides meaningful clinical benefits, which can take decades to establish. Strassle et al. argue that longevity products claiming to prevent or reverse aging should follow established FDA approval pathways and be supported by rigorous evidence of effectiveness, and safety. “Legitimate industry should welcome such enforcement, and the public should demand it,” Strassle et al. write.

As communities across the U.S. grapple with the rapid spread of Flock cameras and questions about who can access the data they collect, a new study from a University of Massachusetts Amherst public policy researcher reframes the debate to ask a more basic question: Does the technology serve the public? The study, published in the journal Cities, examines facial recognition technology in Portland, Oregon and autonomous vehicles in Tempe, Arizona to show how communities can weigh the promised benefits of emerging technologies against risks to values such as privacy, equity, transparency and civil liberties. The researchers employ “public value mapping”—a way for governments and the people they serve to look at what a technology is designed to accomplish and weigh it against what else it may change. The approach takes on added significance as Flock cameras—automated license plate readers used by law enforcement and communities—have become a flashpoint over privacy, surveillance and policing.