Literature Review — Adverse Transfusion and Transplantation Medicine Outcomes & Control Measures (Traditional vs AI‑Assisted)

Rationale

This assessment develops students’ skills in critically evaluating scientific literature related to adverse outcomes in transfusion and transplantation medicine, while demonstrating responsible and transparent use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Students must interrogate both peer‑reviewed traditional evidence and AI‑generated synthesis to inform evidence‑based laboratory practice, quality control, and patient safety.

The task builds capabilities in:

• Academic and scientific writing
• Critical appraisal of research
• Identification of trends, gaps, and controversies
• Responsible GenAI use
• Evidence‑based decision making in laboratory medicine

  For this assessment, you will:

• Select one adverse outcome topic from the approved list provided in Moodle.   
• Research and synthesise current traditional peer‑reviewed literature (2015–2026). 
• Explain the adverse outcomes' pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical features, and laboratory implications. 
• Compare traditional literature versus AI‑assisted reviews (e.g., risk prediction, QC analytics, decision support).
• Evaluate control procedures or preventative measures used to reduce risk/impact.
• Critically analyse GenAI‑generated content
• Present conclusions and future research directions
• Include a transparent AI usage disclosure with unedited AI output and fact‑checking notes.

 Note: Repeating students must select a different topic to avoid self‑plagiarism.

Assessment Structure

Section 1: AI‑Generated Background Overview (Not assessed for scientific accuracy)

  You must:

1. Use a generative AI tool (e.g., Microsoft Copilot, ChatGPT) to produce a high‑level overview of your selected topic.
2. Include the following exactly and transparently:
   1. Tool used
   2. Date/version (if available)
   3. Exact prompt(s) used
   4. Full, unedited AI output
   5. Provide brief fact‑checking comments, supported by peer‑reviewed references.

Section 2: Critical Literature Review and Evidence Evaluation (1200 words +/-10%)
This section forms the core of the assessment. Use peer‑reviewed English‑language articles (2015–2026) only. 

Required elements:

1. Introduction & Objectives
2. Search Strategy & Selection Criteria.
3. Thematic Synthesis (organise by themes, not study‑by‑study)
4. Critical Analysis of Evidence
5. Summarise Implications & Recommendations

Section 3: Critical Reflection on the Use of Generative AI (300 words +/- 10%)

• How AI supported your learning (e.g., generating frameworks, keyword brainstorming).
• Risks/limitations (e.g., hallucinations, outdated info, missing context, lack of methodological nuance, opacity).
• How you mitigated these risks through evidence verification, responsible citation practices, Critical appraisal
• Ethical considerations in clinical laboratory contexts (bias, patient safety, data privacy).

Please note: AI augments but does not replace evidence appraisal.

Formatting and referencing:

• Length: 1200 words ±10% (main body). 300 +/- 10% (Critical Reflection on Generative AI).
• Minimum 10 peer‑reviewed sources published within the past 10 years. 
• Cover page with student name and ID on all pages.
• Font/spacing: 12‑pt Times New Roman/Arial/Calibri, double‑spaced; use headings/sub‑headings.
• Figures/Tables: Allowed (small file size). Caption and cite sources unless self‑created.
• Referencing: Vancouver style in-text and end of text reference list
• In‑text Vancouver: superscript or bracketed numbers with page numbers for direct statements where applicable (e.g., “…risk increases with donor plasma volume^12(p.4)”).
• File type: .pdf.

Note: for further support on writing, referencing, etc. Please contact the Academic Learning Centre (ALC). 

Academic Integrity & Responsible AI Use

Level of GenAI use allowed:
Level 3: You may use Al to assist with specific tasks such as drafting text, refining and evaluating your work. You must critically evaluate and modify any Al-generated content you use. Note: Cutting and pasting of Gen AI/LLM material into assessments may be considered contract cheating and/or plagiarism. 

• You must include Section 1 with unedited AI output and prompts.
• AI may be used for ideation, outlining, language clarity, and figure drafting, but final claims must be supported by peer‑reviewed sources.
• Do not cite AI as an authority. Cite the primary literature.
• You are responsible for the accuracy, originality, and proper attribution of all content. Plagiarism, self‑plagiarism, and fabricated citations breach policy.

Each section will be allocated a specific number of marks. The marking rubric will be available in the unit's Moodle site.

Assessment criteria will focus on:

• Appropriateness of topic and selected literature
• Depth and sophistication of critical analysis
• Ability to compare traditional vs AI‑assisted approaches
• Evaluation of control and preventive strategies
• Identification of gaps, controversies, and future research directions
• Quality, cohesion, and logic of narrative structure
• Clarity and professionalism of writing
• Accuracy and consistency of Vancouver referencing in test and end of text list 
• Transparency and ethical use of AI

A 5% late penalty per calendar day applies to all overdue assessments if submitted after the due date/time without an approved extension. 

This assessment is designed to strengthen your knowledge in selection of blood for transfusion to achieve a safe transfusion outcome, while gaining experience in presenting case studies for clinical meetings or conference presentations. 
You and your group will analyse a provided clinical case study to determine the safest transfusion outcome for the patient. You will then create a short live presentation explaining your findings.

This assessment has three (3) parts: 

• Part A – Individual Report (50%) - due Week 11 - Thursday 28.05.26, 23:59 PM
• Part B – Group Presentation (40%) - due Week 11 - Friday 29.05.26, 09:00 AM
• Part C – Self & Peer Review (10%) - due Week 11 - Friday 29.05.26, 23:59 PM

Part A – Individual (50%) 

Submit a (600‑word +/-10%) report via Moodle analysing the case study. This may include but not limited to: 

• Patient details, signs, and symptoms
• Details of clinician’s request
• Analysis of all lab results and how it impacts selection of compatible blood for safe transfusion purposes
• Explanation of compatibility testing
• Answers to all case questions to be included in relevant parts of your discussion 
• Must use peer‑reviewed sources with references. 

Formatting and Referencing - Part A:  

• PDF format 
• Cover page required. Student name and student number are to be included in the footer of each page  
• Use double line spacing
• Font: Arial or Times New Roman, size 12 pt; page numbers on each page
• Vancouver referencing (in‑text and Reference List with page numbers) 

Part B – Group Presentation (40%) 
The opportunity to select your group via Moodle will be available to you sometime after week 4, after confirmation of student numbers for this unit. Each group is to work collaboratively to develop a 15–20-minute live presentation discussing their case study.  This group work will include an in-depth discussion of the following:  

• An outline of the patient's clinical presentation, including any signs and symptoms
• Analysis of the requesting clinicians request form
• Analysis and interpretation of all laboratory results, including any other clinical data provided
• Diagnostic criteria used to determine the patient's transfusion compatibility with selection of donor units for safe transfusion outcomes
• Each member’s contribution

Formatting and Referencing - Part B:  

• Your response should be submitted via Moodle in PowerPoint format - PDF.  
• No cover page is required. Student name and student number of each group member is to be included in the title slide.  
• Double line spacing must be used.  
• Font in either Arial or Times New Roman, 12 points. 
• A minimum of 10 references, published within the last five (5) years.  
• Vancouver referencing (in‑text and reference list with page numbers)  
   

Part C – Self and Peer Review (10%) 
 
To assess each member's contribution to the group's work, complete the confidential self and peer assessment (SPA) activity in Moodle.  

Level of GenAI use allowed:
Level 1: You must not use Gen Al at any point during the assessment. You must demonstrate your core skills and knowledge.

Please note a 72-hour grace period does not apply to Part A, Part B or Part C of this assessment item. 

Detailed marking rubrics for group assessment component as well as individual assessment component will be provided in Moodle site of the assessment criteria used. 

Each question will be allocated a specific number of marks. The marking rubric will be available on the unit's Moodle site.
Assessment criteria will be based on:

• Knowledge of theory
• Application of foundational concepts
• Correct use of terminology
• Presentation of information
• Feedback provided to peers
• Referencing

A 5% late penalty per calendar day applies to all overdue assessments if submitted after the due date/time without an approved extension.