This paper explores the growing presence of emotionally responsive artificial intelligence through a critical and interdisciplinary lens. Bringing together the voices of early-career researchers from multiple fields, it explores how AI systems that simulate or interpret human emotions are reshaping our interactions in areas such as education, healthcare, mental health, caregiving, and digital life. The analysis is structured around four central themes: the ethical implications of emotional AI, the cultural dynamics of human-machine interaction, the risks and opportunities for vulnerable populations, and the emerging regulatory, design, and technical considerations. The authors highlight the potential of affective AI to support mental well-being, enhance learning, and reduce loneliness, as well as the risks of emotional manipulation, over-reliance, misrepresentation, and cultural bias. Key challenges include simulating empathy without genuine understanding, encoding dominant sociocultural norms into AI systems, and insufficient safeguards for individuals in sensitive or high-risk contexts. Special attention is given to children, elderly users, and individuals with mental health challenges, who may interact with AI in emotionally significant ways. However, there remains a lack of cognitive or legal protections which are necessary to navigate such engagements safely. The report concludes with ten recommendations, including the need for transparency, certification frameworks, region-specific fine-tuning, human oversight, and longitudinal research. A curated supplementary section provides practical tools, models, and datasets to support further work in this domain.

Existing methods to characterise the evolving condition of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) do not capture the context necessary for individualising treatment. Here, we integrate all heterogenous data stored in medical records (1,166 pre-ICU and ICU variables) to model the individualised contribution of clinical course to six-month functional outcome on the Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE). On a prospective cohort (n=1,550, 65 centres) of TBI patients, we train recurrent neural network models to map a token-embedded time series representation of all variables (including missing values) to an ordinal GOSE prognosis every two hours. The full range of variables explains up to 52% (95% CI: 50%-54%) of the ordinal variance in functional outcome. Up to 91% (95% CI: 90%-91%) of this explanation is derived from pre-ICU and admission information (i.e., static variables). Information collected in the ICU (i.e., dynamic variables) increases explanation (by up to 5% [95% CI: 4%-6%]), though not enough to counter poorer overall performance in longer-stay (>5.75 days) patients. Highest-contributing variables include physician-based prognoses, CT features, and markers of neurological function. Whilst static information currently accounts for the majority of functional outcome explanation after TBI, data-driven analysis highlights investigative avenues to improve dynamic characterisation of longer-stay patients. Moreover, our modelling strategy proves useful for converting large patient records into interpretable time series with missing data integration and minimal processing.

When a patient is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after a traumatic brain injury (TBI), an early prognosis is essential for baseline risk adjustment and shared decision making. TBI outcomes are commonly categorised by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) into 8, ordered levels of functional recovery at 6 months after injury. Existing ICU prognostic models predict binary outcomes at a certain threshold of GOSE (e.g., prediction of survival [GOSE>1] or functional independence [GOSE>4]). We aimed to develop ordinal prediction models that concurrently predict probabilities of each GOSE score. From a prospective cohort (n=1,550, 65 centres) in the ICU stratum of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) patient dataset, we extracted all clinical information within 24 hours of ICU admission (1,151 predictors) and 6-month GOSE scores. We analysed the effect of 2 design elements on ordinal model performance: (1) the baseline predictor set, ranging from a concise set of 10 validated predictors to a token-embedded representation of all possible predictors, and (2) the modelling strategy, from ordinal logistic regression to multinomial deep learning. With repeated k-fold cross-validation, we found that expanding the baseline predictor set significantly improved ordinal prediction performance while increasing analytical complexity did not. Half of these gains could be achieved with the addition of 8 high-impact predictors (2 demographic variables, 4 protein biomarkers, and 2 severity assessments) to the concise set. At best, ordinal models achieved 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74-0.77) ordinal discrimination ability (ordinal c-index) and 57% (95% CI: 54%-60%) explanation of ordinal variation in 6-month GOSE (Somers' D). Our results motivate the search for informative predictors for higher GOSE and the development of ordinal dynamic prediction models.