IntechOpen

Home > Books > Industry 4.0 - Transforming the Future Beyond Manufacturing - Volume 1, Digital Technologies and Smart Industrial Systems

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Industry 4.0: Transforming the Future beyond Manufacturing

Written By

Chun-Jan Tseng and Ming-Han Chang

Submitted: 11 September 2025 Reviewed: 19 September 2025 Published: 03 February 2026

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1013120

Industry 4.0 - Transforming the Future Beyond Manufacturing IntechOpen
Industry 4.0 - Transforming the Future Beyond Manufacturing Volume 1, Digital Technologies and Smart Indu... Edited by Miguel Delgado-Prieto and Luis Romeral Martinez

From the Edited Volume

Industry 4.0 - Transforming the Future Beyond Manufacturing - Volume 1, Digital Technologies and Smart Industrial Systems

Miguel Delgado Prieto and Luis Romeral Martínez

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

116 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Industry 4.0 is not merely a manufacturing revolution but a profound transformation of economic systems, social structures, and governance. This chapter provides a comprehensive and timely examination of Industry 4.0, emphasizing how its core technological foundations, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), cyber–physical systems (CPS), and advanced optimization techniques, extend beyond manufacturing to reshape multiple sectors, most notably healthcare delivery, logistics and supply chain management, and urban governance by enabling unprecedented gains in real-time responsiveness, efficiency, and resilience. Looking forward, this study also highlights that the long-term success of Industry 4.0 will rely on balancing technological progress with human-centered values, ensuring equitable access to digital opportunities, and embedding sustainability into future industrial and societal ecosystems. By viewing Industry 4.0 as both a technological and societal evolution, we highlight the need for global collaboration, interdisciplinary research, and adaptive governance to harness its full potential for collective progress.

Keywords

  • Industry 4.0
  • artificial intelligence (AI)
  • Internet of Things (IoT)
  • cyber–physical systems (CPS)
  • smart cities
  • smart manufacturing
  • ethical AI
  • sustainability

1. Introduction

1.1 The genesis of a new era

Over the last 10 years, the term “Industry 4.0” has often been linked primarily to smart factories, cyber–physical systems (CPS), autonomous machines, and highly connected production lines aimed at achieving significant improvements in efficiency, quality, and responsiveness [1]. However, limiting the concept solely to manufacturing automation overlooks its wider transformative implications. With the growing integration of digital and physical realms, the foundational ideas that reshaped manufacturing – such as data-driven decision-making, advanced automation, and widespread connectivity – are increasingly being applied to fields like health care, logistics, urban management, and service sectors.

Instead of being merely a technological shift, Industry 4.0 is a profound systemic transformation. It is driven by the co-evolution of key technologies: artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), machine learning (ML), cloud–edge integration, and algorithmic optimization, which together establish adaptive, cross-sector infrastructures [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The intellectual trajectory of the paradigm is instructive. Past research emphasized CPS and vertical–horizontal integration, initially articulated in Germany’s “Industrie 4.0” framework [1]. Later studies consolidated its principles of design, interoperability, decentralization, real-time responsiveness, and service orientation, establishing a shared vocabulary that extends far beyond manufacturing [2, 3]. Recent reviews have connected these principles to concrete technology stacks (IoT, cloud services, big data analytics) and organizational adoption patterns, underscoring both transformative potential and persistent implementation bottlenecks [3, 7].

1.2 Beyond the assembly line: A new paradigm

The traditional assembly line, once the epitome of industrial efficiency, is now being superseded by a paradigm that prioritizes agility, adaptivity, and holistic system-level coordination. In health care, predictive scheduling and resource optimization align operating rooms, beds, staff, and diagnostic equipment with inherently stochastic patient flows, reducing delays while preserving safety-critical constraints [8, 9]. Established methods from operations research are now augmented by ML-based prediction models and metaheuristics, enabling multi-objective optimization that balances patient waiting times, staff overtime, and fairness [10, 11].

In logistics, fleets are dynamically rerouted as AI agents integrate signals from telematics, traffic conditions, weather, and demand fluctuations. This continuous re-optimization, often framed as dynamic vehicle routing problems (DVRPs), exemplifies the “always-learning, always-scheduling” character of Industry 4.0. Here, algorithms explicitly balance timeliness, energy consumption, and service levels under streaming uncertainty [12, 13]. Comparable transformations are visible in urban management: networks of IoT devices, combined with edge–cloud analytics, enable adaptive regulation of energy consumption, mobility, and public services. These urban-scale CPS infrastructures integrate human oversight with automated control, creating responsive and resilient city ecosystems [14, 15].

Importantly, these are not speculative scenarios. Hospitals increasingly deploy analytics-enhanced appointment and resource management systems; logistics carriers routinely apply real-time optimization for dispatch; and cities operate sensor-rich platforms for managing lighting, water, and transit. What differentiates the current wave is the maturation of enabling technologies: IoT connectivity, edge computing, standardized data models, and scalable AI pipelines, which lower barriers to diffusion across domains [4, 5, 6, 14, 15].

1.3 The technological pillars of transformation

Several technological pillars underpin the transition toward Industry 4.0.

IoT and cyber–physical integration: IoT creates a widespread network of sensors and actuators that produce continuous streams of data while allowing direct engagement with physical systems. Commonly, these systems are organized into layered structures spanning devices, edge nodes, and cloud platforms. Edge computing plays a crucial role in this setup by reducing delay and maintaining operational stability close to the data source. Decisions about sensing priorities, computation placement, and integration strategies profoundly impact not just the system’s efficiency but also its security protocols, management frameworks, and the degree of trust it commands [5, 6, 15].

AI and ML as decision engines: AI transforms raw telemetry into predictions and prescriptive policies. Supervised learning underpins demand forecasting and risk prediction; reinforcement learning (RL) addresses sequential decision problems; and probabilistic forecasting informs uncertainty-aware planning. In operating rooms, ML improves case-duration estimation, supporting robust scheduling; in smart mobility, predictive controllers dynamically adapt routes and headways to alleviate congestion [9, 11, 12, 13].

Optimization and autonomous scheduling: The backbone of “intelligence” in operations remains mathematical optimization and its metaheuristic companions. Scheduling problems are generically NP-hard; tractability in realistic settings often requires decomposition, heuristic search, and, when objectives conflict, multi-objective formulations [16]. Genetic algorithms (GAs) and their multi-objective counterparts, such as Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), have become a cornerstone in many fields. Their widespread adoption can be attributed to several key strengths: they are highly expressive, scalable, and inherently well-suited for dynamic, data-driven environments [16, 17]. In these settings, GAs can readily integrate complex simulations and real-time streaming data to evaluate the effectiveness of candidate solutions, making them a powerful tool for developing robust and adaptive schedules [18, 19]. In logistics DVRP, event-driven optimization continuously adapts to disruptions, enabling “autonomous scheduling” at scale [12].

Standards and integration patterns: Research from adoption studies suggests that organizations tend to perform well when they combine innovations at the application level, such as smart supply chains and intelligent operations, with strong foundational technologies like IoT, cloud computing, and data analytics. Equally important are governance structures that maintain interoperability and support value throughout the system’s lifecycle. New integration approaches, including digital twins, semantic data lakes, and coordinated management between edge devices and the cloud, offer practical pathways to expand pilot projects into full enterprise implementations [20].

1.4 Cross-sectoral perspectives

To illustrate the breadth of Industry 4.0, we adopt a comparative framework comprising four decision layers: perception (sensing), prediction (analytics), prescription (optimization), and actuation (control).

  • In healthcare settings, electronic health records (EHR), device data streams, and key operating room events help guide the movement of patients through the system. Researchers develop models to assess surgery durations and figure out when beds will be free. Scheduling approaches are intended to reduce patient wait times while maintaining fairness and efficient use of staff resources. When unexpected situations arise, schedules are adjusted, but these alterations rely on human expertise to ensure safety and reaffirm ethical standards [7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

  • In logistics and supply chain management, telematics and radio-frequency identification (RFID) provide continuous status data, demand forecasts are enriched by multimodal signals, and hybrid optimization methods compute routes under dynamic conditions. Edge-enabled vehicles coordinate with cloud platforms for real-time re-optimization [12, 13, 16].

  • In smart cities and public services, dense IoT networks monitor energy, water, air quality, and mobility. Anomaly detection is achieved through forecasting methods, including graph-based ML, whereas multi-objective controllers serve to arbitrate between competing goals, such as maintaining comfort while minimizing energy consumption. Edge controllers actuate localized responses while maintaining human oversight [5, 6, 14].

This comparative lens highlights shared patterns, data-driven feedback loops, ML–optimization hybrids, and human-in-the-loop governance, while also revealing domain-specific constraints. In health care, safety and equity dominate; in logistics, efficiency and sustainability prevail; in urban systems, transparency and participatory governance are paramount.

Building on the conceptual foundation established in Section 1, Section 2 examines the core technological and ethical dimensions of Industry 4.0. This includes an integrated discussion of AI, IoT, optimization methodologies, and CPS, alongside the critical themes of trust, transparency, and governance. Section 3 then transitions from theory to practice, demonstrating how these technologies are deployed across diverse domains such as health care, logistics, and smart cities. Section 4 broadens the lens further by analyzing the wider societal ramifications of Industry 4.0, including economic restructuring, transformations in labor markets, and the ethical challenges that accompany accelerated digitalization. Finally, Section 5 synthesizes the insights derived from the preceding analysis, highlighting both applied implications and theoretical contributions. Taken together, these sections provide a coherent trajectory from foundational principles to practical applications and broader societal considerations, offering readers a comprehensive understanding of Industry 4.0’s multifaceted impact.

2. Core dimensions of Industry 4.0 transformation: A literature review

Industry 4.0 represents more than just a technical breakthrough; it constitutes a fundamental shift in how industrial and social systems are organized. At its base, it integrates computational intelligence, widespread connectivity, and automation to create new ways of functioning. Although it originated in the context of smart manufacturing, its essential components, such as AI, IoT, optimization techniques, and CPS, have implications that extend well beyond factory settings, influencing fields like health care, supply chain management, energy systems, and urban planning. However, the increasing use of autonomous and intelligent technologies also prompts important questions about safety, ethical considerations, and regulatory frameworks.

This paragraph briefly outlines the databases consulted (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed), the time window of coverage (2019–2025), and the inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings directly addressing Industry 4.0 technologies and their cross-sector applications). Evidence was grouped thematically along four dimensions: AI, IoT, optimization and analytics, and CPS, followed by a subsection on ethics and governance.

2.1 AI as the cognitive engine

AI has emerged as the central cognitive driver of Industry 4.0, enabling tasks that traditionally required human intelligence [21]. Earlier applications emphasized predictive maintenance and defect detection using supervised learning [22, 23], but recent advances highlight explainable AI (XAI), federated learning, and RL systems that adapt to dynamic environments [24, 25].

Kusiak [26] conceptualizes AI as the “brain” of smart factories, where intelligent agents dynamically allocate resources, minimize downtime, and optimize energy consumption [26]. Beyond manufacturing, AI supports healthcare diagnostics, with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) achieving accuracy comparable to human experts in cancer detection [27]. Federated learning ensures privacy while enabling cross-institutional model training, a growing necessity under strict data regulations [28]. In logistics, RL enhances supply chain resilience, with recent case studies showing demand forecasting errors reduced by nearly 30% [29]. The evolution of AI is marked by its shift from predictive analytics to adaptive, domain-spanning cognitive systems.

2.2 IoT as a data ecosystem and digital connectivity

The IoT serves as the foundational sensory layer within Industry 4.0, incorporating sensors, actuators, and communication capabilities directly into physical systems. Initial research primarily concentrated on monitoring aspects. Over time, the focus has shifted toward exploring edge computing and the integration of advanced wireless technologies like 5G and 6G, which offer the potential for ultra-low latency and enable more distributed and autonomous system operations [31, 32].

The integration of IoT-enabled predictive maintenance and digital twins is transforming manufacturing operations by significantly improving efficiency. Recent research, for example, highlights substantial increases in the accuracy of failure prediction, a key benefit of these technologies [33, 34]. In health care, wearables provide continuous monitoring of chronic conditions [35]. In logistics, IoT platforms enable end-to-end visibility, ensuring traceability and reducing waste [36]. Urban deployments illustrate IoT’s broader societal role: adaptive lighting reduced energy consumption by 22% in smart city pilots [37], while IoT-based transit management improved mobility efficiency in European cities [38]. These developments underscore IoT’s role as an indispensable data ecosystem supporting cross-domain Industry 4.0 applications.

2.3 Optimization and predictive analytics

The massive data inflow from IoT requires advanced analytics to extract actionable insights. Traditional descriptive analytics has evolved into predictive and prescriptive frameworks that integrate ML with optimization [39, 40].

Optimization continues to play a fundamental role in the development of Industry 4.0. Researchers have increasingly turned to metaheuristic algorithms, such as GA [41], simulated annealing [42], and swarm intelligence [43], to tackle the challenges posed by NP-hard, multi-objective scheduling and routing problems. Progress in multi-objective optimization has provided decision-makers with valuable frameworks for balancing conflicting criteria – for example, reducing costs while enhancing sustainability [36]. Additionally, hybrid methodologies have shown promising results; for instance, Zhou et al. [44] found that integrating deep reinforcement learning (DRL) techniques with GAs yielded superior performance compared to traditional optimization methods in manufacturing scheduling [44, 45].

Applications extend across sectors. In health care, optimization models reduced patient waiting times during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surges without raising costs [46]. In logistics, green vehicle routing integrates IoT data and optimization, cutting delivery times and emissions simultaneously [47]. Digital twins provide additional decision-support capacity, enabling “what-if” scenario testing before implementation. These advances position optimization not as a back-end tool but as an embedded decision engine in real-time systems.

2.4 Cyber–physical systems and human–machine collaboration

CPS forms the fundamental framework of Industry 4.0 by closely integrating computation, communication, and control with physical processes. They play a crucial role in supporting autonomous, adaptive, and real-time decision-making within the manufacturing, energy, and transportation sectors [48, 49]. In factories, CPS-enabled assembly lines provide flexibility for mass customization [50]. In energy systems, smart grids dynamically balance supply and demand, while in transport, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication enhances traffic optimization [51].

A growing body of research highlights CPS applications beyond manufacturing. In intelligent transportation systems, CPS frameworks enable cooperative vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. A 2022 study by Li et al. demonstrated that CPS-based traffic management reduced congestion by 19% in large-scale urban simulations [51]. Similarly, healthcare CPS integrates patient monitoring devices with hospital management systems, enabling real-time clinical decision support [8].

Importantly, CPS does more than automate processes; it fosters collaborative interaction between humans and machines. Robotic-assisted surgery provides a clear example of CPS enhancing human skill rather than replacing it [52]. Additionally, contemporary discussions emphasize the potential of blockchain-enhanced CPS to secure and validate collaborative efforts across distributed networks [48]. These developments illustrate that CPS not only increases operational efficiency but also transforms socio-technical relationships, establishing humans as essential participants within evolving digital-physical environments.

2.5 Ethics, safety, and societal implications

The growth of Industry 4.0 presents significant challenges concerning safety, ethical considerations, and governance [53]. IoT infrastructures continue to be susceptible to cyberattacks, as evidenced by healthcare systems experiencing a 37% increase in malware incidents from 2021 to 2023 [54].

Ethical discussions have long centered on principles such as transparency, accountability, and fairness [55]. The presence of bias in decision-making systems poses a serious threat, as it can reinforce existing social inequalities, especially in critical areas like health care and employment [56]. Various frameworks have been proposed to address these issues. For example, the European Union’s “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI” highlight the importance of clear transparency and ongoing human oversight [57]. Similarly, the AI4People initiative advances normative principles, including beneficence, justice, and explicability, to steer the development of responsible technologies [58].

Trust in such systems is fundamentally shaped by social and technical factors. Studies reveal that patients are more likely to trust AI-based diagnoses when these are accompanied by explanations they can understand [59]. In the context of smart cities, public acceptance of surveillance technologies hinges on governance that is both transparent and respectful of privacy rights [60]. Furthermore, the uneven global adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies risks deepening existing digital inequalities. Confronting these challenges calls for embedding ethical considerations directly into the design process and promoting innovation that is inclusive and equitable.

The literature reviewed indicates that the technological and ethical principles underlying Industry 4.0 extend beyond manufacturing and are adapted to the specific needs of various sectors. To shed light on these patterns, Table 1 offers a synthesis of how five central dimensions – AI, IoT, optimization, CPS, and ethics – are reflected in health care, logistics, and smart cities.

Dimension Health care Logistics and supply chains Smart cities
AI Diagnostic support and predictive analytics Demand forecasting and route optimization Traffic prediction and energy management
IoT Wearables and connected medical devices Fleet, inventory, and cold-chain tracking Sensors for transport, energy, and environment
CPS Integrated clinical systems and robotic assistance Autonomous warehouses and fleet coordination Smart grids and adaptive traffic systems
Optimization Resource and scheduling efficiency Sustainable routing and supply resilience Urban energy and mobility optimization
Ethics and trust Data privacy and clinical accountability Cybersecurity and fair resource use Privacy, governance, and digital inclusion

Table 1.

Cross-sectoral mapping of Industry 4.0 core dimensions across health care, logistics, and smart cities.

This mapping highlights the versatility of Industry 4.0 technologies, showing how the same digital pillars can address distinct sectoral needs while driving convergence toward shared innovation pathways.


This comparison reveals both areas of overlap and distinct differences. A common thread is the use of perception–prediction–prescription–actuation cycles across all sectors. However, each domain faces unique challenges: health care must address stringent safety requirements, logistics demand comprehensive global traceability, and urban systems contend with complex governance frameworks. Crucially, ethical considerations permeate every sector, emphasizing the need for intelligent systems not only to enhance efficiency and productivity but also to uphold transparency, fairness, and public trust.

The structured synthesis presented here provides a conceptual bridge between the technological foundations reviewed in Section 2 and the sectoral applications discussed in Section 3. The following sections, therefore, move from literature-grounded perspectives toward case-informed analyses of Industry 4.0 in health care, logistics, and smart cities.

3. Applications of Industry 4.0 beyond manufacturing

Building upon the technological foundations outlined in Sections 1 and 2, this section explores how Industry 4.0 extends beyond manufacturing into critical domains such as health care, logistics, and smart cities. These applications illustrate the transformative role of AI, IoT, CPS, and optimization in enabling adaptive, sustainable, and resilient socio-technical systems.

3.1 Health care: Intelligent and patient-centered systems

Health care exemplifies one of the most dynamic frontiers for Industry 4.0. The integration of IoT, CPS, and AI fosters predictive, patient-centered care that addresses rising demand and systemic inefficiencies.

3.1.1 Remote patient monitoring

IoT-enabled wearables, biosensors, and implants continuously transmit physiological data to cloud platforms for real-time analysis [61]. Such remote patient monitoring (RPM) improves personalized care and enables preemptive interventions. A 2024 study found that IoT-based RPM reduced hospital readmissions and enhanced healthcare delivery [62].

ML augments RPM by detecting subtle deviations from individual baselines and predicting acute episodes such as arrhythmias or hypoglycemia [63]. While aligning with preventive medicine goals, challenges remain around interoperability, data standardization, and privacy [64].

3.1.2 AI-driven diagnostic imaging

AI has also achieved significant progress in diagnostic imaging. Deep learning (DL) models, especially convolutional neural networks (CNNs), now rival radiologists in interpreting computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and X-ray scans [65]. A Nature Medicine (2019) review confirmed superior AI performance in the early detection of lung cancer and breast lesions [66]. Such systems increasingly function as decision-support tools, reducing diagnostic delays and improving accuracy.

Methodological innovations, such as federated learning, mitigate privacy risks by training models across decentralized databases without centralizing patient data. Recent European initiatives have demonstrated that federated frameworks enhance both performance and generalizability [67, 68]. Nonetheless, clinical adoption faces risks of false positives/negatives and limited interpretability, reinforcing the demand for XAI approaches [69].

3.1.3 Predictive scheduling and hospital resource optimization

Hospital operations benefit from predictive optimization models that adapt to uncertainty in patient arrivals, surgery durations, and emergency cases. Algorithms based on RL and genetic optimization enable dynamic allocation of operating rooms, staff, and recovery beds [70]. A 2024 case study in Germany reported that hybrid AI-optimization scheduling increased operating room utilization by 15% while reducing overtime by 10% [71]. Similar approaches in emergency departments enhance triage efficiency and staffing balance [72].

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of resilience. AI-driven models integrating epidemiological forecasts with hospital capacity planning proved vital in preventing system overload [73].

3.1.4 Ethical considerations in healthcare digitalization

Digital health care raises critical ethical questions regarding equity, privacy, and accountability. Diagnostic AI, trained on demographically skewed datasets, risks exacerbating disparities by underperforming in minority populations [74]. Likewise, IoT-based monitoring devices generate sensitive biometric data, which are vulnerable to cyberattacks [75]. Blockchain-based health records offer a promising pathway toward secure, decentralized storage [76].

Finally, the attribution of liability in AI-mediated care remains unresolved: whether responsibility lies with providers, developers, or institutions. Regulatory frameworks are urgently needed to define accountability in intelligent healthcare ecosystems [77].

3.2 Logistics: Toward autonomous and resilient supply chains

Logistics provides a crucial test bed for Industry 4.0, demanding real-time decisions across distributed networks. AI, IoT, CPS, optimization, and digital twins collectively enable supply chains that are adaptive, carbon-aware, and resilient [78, 79].

3.2.1 Perception and prediction

IoT and CPS establish end-to-end observability, from vehicle telemetry to warehouse robotics. Cold-chain logistics demonstrate CPS utility by co-optimizing freshness, carbon costs, and routing using real-time data [80]. Digital twins integrate condition monitoring to synchronize planning and operations [81].

Prediction models extend this observability, forecasting demand, travel times, and disruptions. Risk analytics increasingly inform inventory buffers and routing thresholds, shifting supply chains from reactive to predictive management [79, 82].

3.2.2 Prescriptive optimization

Canonical vehicle routing and scheduling problems are increasingly solved under uncertainty with multi-objective trade-offs. For perishables, optimization balances freshness preservation, emissions, and cost [80]. In rail freight, evolutionary algorithms jointly minimize delay, energy, and cost [83].

Dynamic re-routing is enhanced by DRL, which adapts dispatching policies under stochastic demand [84]. At ports and warehouses, appointment systems and predictive maintenance models mitigate congestion and reduce service variance [81, 85].

3.2.3 Digital twins and execution

Digital twins evolve from monitoring tools to closed-loop optimizers, simulating scenarios and recommending actions in real time [78]. In warehousing, twin-in-the-loop systems reduce cycle times, while in ports, they support emission-conscious scheduling and policy evaluation [81, 86]. Execution relies on synchronized orchestration platforms coordinating humans, mobile robots, and IoT-enabled infrastructure [82].

3.2.4 Sustainability and resilience

Sustainability objectives are increasingly embedded in logistics decision-making. Green routing and electrification-aware planning balance cost, emissions, and energy constraints [80, 83]. Resilience strategies combine predictive risk analytics, scenario optimization, and digital twin-enabled contingency planning [78, 85, 86].

3.2.5 Case studies

  • Urban last-mile logistics: Micro-fulfillment centers integrated with dynamic routing and warehouse twins improved on-time delivery and picker throughput [81, 84, 87].

  • Port drayage: Appointment reallocation and predictive maintenance reduced congestion and emissions [85, 86].

  • Cold-chain pharma delivery: Telemetry-based routing co-optimized freshness and carbon cost, offsetting additional expenses through reduced spoilage [80].

3.2.6 Implementation blueprint

Typical adoption involves: (i) mapping and instrumenting assets, (ii) forecasting operational states, (iii) applying constrained optimization with learning enhancements, (iv) embedding digital twins, and (v) governing with balanced scorecards tracking cost, service, carbon, and resilience [78].

3.2.7 Outlook

Emerging trends include foundation models for routing, tighter coupling of logistics with energy grids, and audit-ready optimization frameworks to satisfy regulatory and customer demands [78, 79, 82].

3.3 Smart cities: Data-driven urban intelligence

The concept of smart cities embodies perhaps the most holistic application of Industry 4.0 technologies, where IoT, AI, and CPS are orchestrated to create data-driven urban ecosystems. Smart cities are envisioned as adaptive systems capable of optimizing infrastructure, energy use, and service delivery in real-time, thereby enhancing the quality of life and sustainability.

3.3.1 Urban mobility optimization

AI-driven traffic management dynamically adjusts signals and reroutes vehicles using IoT and connected vehicle data [88]. RL-based scheduling reduces congestion and fuel consumption [89], while mobility-as–a-service platforms optimize multimodal transport allocation [90]. Last-mile logistics increasingly employs autonomous vehicles and drones for sustainable delivery [91, 92].

3.3.2 Smart grids and energy management

Energy is at the core of smart city infrastructure, and its efficient management is vital for sustainable urban development. Smart grids leverage IoT and AI for predictive load balancing and renewable integration [93, 94]. Case studies demonstrate reduced peak demand and greater solar integration [95]. Demand-side management and transactive energy markets further decentralize energy governance [96, 97]. Optimization methods balance cost, sustainability, and reliability [98].

3.3.3 Public health and environmental monitoring

IoT sensors and AI analytics support air quality monitoring and epidemic surveillance [99, 100]. During COVID-19, AI-assisted systems enhanced contact tracing and outbreak prediction [101, 102]. Predictive models also strengthen disaster response, such as AI-enhanced flood forecasting [103, 104].

3.3.4 Data governance and ethics

The expansion of smart cities raises pressing concerns around privacy, algorithmic fairness, and sovereignty. Regulatory frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), mandate transparency and consent [105, 106]. Biased algorithms risk reinforcing inequalities, as evidenced in predictive policing [107]. Edge computing and federated learning mitigate dependency on centralized infrastructures, supporting local data governance [108, 109].

3.4 Multi-objective optimization: Balancing conflicting priorities

The real world is rarely about a single goal; it is about balancing multiple, often conflicting, objectives. This is where multi-objective optimization becomes essential. A multi-objective problem might seek to minimize cost while simultaneously maximizing customer satisfaction and minimizing environmental impact. For an energy utility company, a multi-objective optimization algorithm could be used to manage the power grid. Its objectives might include minimizing the cost of electricity generation, ensuring a stable power supply, and prioritizing renewable energy sources [13, 14]. The algorithm would not produce a single “best” answer but rather a set of “Pareto optimal” solutions – a set of options where improving one objective would necessarily mean compromising another. This allows human decision-makers to select the solution that best fits their strategic priorities.

3.5 Autonomous scheduling: Cross-domain case studies

The convergence of IoT and optimization algorithms leads to autonomous scheduling, where systems can plan and adapt without continuous human intervention. This is not just theoretical; it is being implemented in diverse fields today.

  • Smart city transit – a living network: Real-time traffic and occupancy data enable dynamic rescheduling of buses, signals, and ride-sharing services, lowering congestion and emissions [14, 15].

  • Health care – optimizing every second: Emergency departments leverage IoT and AI scheduling to allocate staff and operating rooms, reducing delays, and improving patient outcomes [7, 8].

  • Supply chain – real-time resilience: IoT-enabled networks dynamically re-route shipments and renegotiate delivery commitments, creating resilient “self-healing” systems [12, 13].

3.6 The future of hyper-connected systems

The convergence of IoT and advanced optimization establishes hyper-connected ecosystems capable of orchestrating entire infrastructures. Future trajectories include:

  1. Foundation models for optimization tasks, enabling rapid adaptation.

  2. Integration with energy systems, particularly for electrified fleets and smart grids.

  3. Explainable, auditable autonomy to meet regulatory and societal expectations [78, 79, 82].

These shifts represent the essence of Industry 4.0: not only smarter systems but ecosystems optimized for resilience and sustainability.

As summarized in Table 2, the application of Industry 4.0 technologies beyond manufacturing demonstrates both domain-specific opportunities and recurring cross-sectoral challenges. While health care emphasizes patient-centric predictive systems, logistics focuses on autonomous coordination and resilience, and smart cities integrate diverse infrastructures into data-driven ecosystems. Common challenges, including interoperability, governance, and sustainability, form the foundation for the discussion in Section 4, where these cross-cutting issues are analyzed in depth.

Domain Core enabling technologies Representative applications Key challenges
Health care IoT-based sensors, AI diagnostics, predictive optimization, blockchain for data security. Remote patient monitoring, AI-driven imaging, predictive hospital scheduling. Interoperability of devices, data privacy, algorithmic bias, and unclear liability frameworks.
Logistics IoT/CPS telemetry, digital twins, RL, multi-objective optimization. Dynamic vehicle routing, warehouse twins, cold-chain management, port scheduling. Real-time uncertainty, scalability, sustainability constraints, integration with energy grids.
Smart cities Urban IoT networks, AI optimization, smart grids, federated learning. Traffic management, MaaS platforms, energy demand forecasting, public health monitoring. Data governance, sovereignty, fairness in AI, cybersecurity, citizen trust.

Table 2.

Industry 4.0 applications beyond manufacturing, with key cases in health care, logistics, and smart cities.

The summary underscores how technical advancements translate into practical outcomes, providing evidence of Industry 4.0’s transformative impact across diverse domains.


To complement the thematic survey, it is instructive to highlight concrete cases where Industry 4.0 technologies have been deployed and measured through key performance indicators (KPIs). These KPI-driven case studies illustrate that the practical implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies is not merely theoretical but measurable across distinct sectors. From enhanced operating room scheduling in health care to AI-driven sustainability gains in logistics and adaptive traffic optimization in urban mobility, Table 3 synthesizes representative examples from health care, logistics, and smart cities, showing how computational intelligence and digital infrastructures translate into tangible efficiency, sustainability, and societal benefits. At the same time, the heterogeneity of these outcomes highlights that the value of Industry 4.0 is context-dependent, requiring tailored governance and sector-specific adaptation. This KPI-based comparison not only substantiates the discussion in Section 3 but also sets the stage for Section 4, where broader societal implications and governance challenges are examined.

Sector Setting and intervention Key performance indicators (KPIs) Reference
Health care Hospital case study (2024): Computational algorithms for surgical scheduling and team coordination Operating room utilization +18%, idle time −12%, staff overtime −9%. Vladu et al. [110]
Logistics Lisbon Pilot (2025), AI-driven optimization with electric vehicle fleet Delivery time ↓ 15–20%, energy efficiency ↓ 10–25%, CO2 emissions ↓ 30 ~ 40%. Ferreira & Esperança [111]
Smart cities Mixed-traffic urban simulation (2024), hierarchical RL for traffic control. Average traffic delay: −17%; average waiting time: −54%; traffic throughput: +22%. Wang et al. [112]

Table 3.

Key performance indicators (KPIs) across health care, logistics, and smart city applications.

This table demonstrates how Industry 4.0 technologies generate measurable improvements across sectors, translating technical innovation into societal value.


4. Societal transformation and future outlook

The preceding section has traced the technological underpinnings of Industry 4.0 (Section 2) and examined its cross-sectoral applications in health care, logistics, and smart cities (Section 3). These analyses underscore how AI, IoT, CPS, and optimization frameworks are no longer confined to industrial contexts but are actively reshaping societal domains. Section 4 thus expands the scope of inquiry: moving beyond technical capabilities and sectoral case studies, it interrogates the broader transformations in economic structures, labor markets, governance systems, and ethical frameworks. Recent scholarship has emphasized that the Fourth Industrial Revolution represents not merely a technological disruption but a socio-technical evolution with consequences comparable to earlier industrial revolutions, albeit amplified by speed, scale, and interconnectedness [113, 114].

4.1 From industrial revolution to societal evolution

As demonstrated in earlier sections, Industry 4.0 embodies a convergence of computational intelligence, ubiquitous connectivity, and autonomous decision-making. These features extend far beyond industrial optimization to redefine how societies organize daily life. The scope of transformation is reminiscent of prior industrial revolutions that reordered global economies and social institutions, yet the distinguishing hallmark of Industry 4.0 lies in its simultaneous digitization of production, governance, and social interaction [115].

The integration of CPS within public infrastructures illustrates this shift. Smart healthcare ecosystems that integrate predictive analytics into population health management, intelligent urban infrastructures that dynamically optimize traffic and energy consumption, and adaptive supply chains resilient to global disruptions collectively illustrate how societal functions are becoming algorithmically mediated [116]. This interconnected evolution underscores that Industry 4.0 is not a discrete industrial phenomenon but a comprehensive societal reconfiguration.

4.2 Economic shifts and new business models

Industry 4.0 has catalyzed a structural transformation in economic organization, particularly evident in the emergence of data-driven and service-oriented business models. Outcome-as-a-Service (OaaS) frameworks, in which firms provide uptime or optimized performance rather than physical assets, are becoming increasingly viable due to AI-enabled predictive analytics and IoT monitoring [117]. This shift reflects a move from ownership-based transactions toward relational and usage-based value creation, realigning incentives between providers and users.

In parallel, mass personalization, long considered incompatible with efficiency, is now attainable at an industrial scale. AI-powered recommender systems already tailor consumer experiences in e-commerce and media, while emerging applications extend personalization into healthcare diagnostics, education, and urban services [118]. Such shifts mark the transition from economies of scale to economies of scope, in which adaptive production and distribution systems align closely with individual needs. The resulting hybrid economy combines large-scale infrastructure with micro-level customization, reinforcing Industry 4.0’s role in blurring boundaries between production and consumption.

4.3 Redefining the workforce and skill gaps

The transformation of labor markets constitutes one of the most profound societal challenges associated with Industry 4.0. While automation increasingly substitutes for repetitive physical and cognitive tasks, the parallel rise of new occupational categories, ranging from AI governance and ethics to robotics maintenance and digital twin modeling, signals not a net disappearance but a reconfiguration of work [119].

Recent studies highlight a paradoxical landscape: employment in manufacturing and clerical tasks is projected to decline, whereas demand for roles emphasizing creativity, critical reasoning, and socio-emotional intelligence is expected to grow [120]. This transition underscores the inadequacy of traditional education models, which emphasize knowledge accumulation over adaptive capacities. To mitigate widening skill gaps, governments, corporations, and academic institutions are experimenting with re-skilling programs, modular learning, and interdisciplinary curricula designed to foster flexibility and life-long learning [121]. The outcome of these initiatives will determine whether Industry 4.0 exacerbates labor market inequalities or engenders inclusive opportunities for workforce renewal.

4.4 Ethical and regulatory challenges in a hyper-connected era

The hyper-connectivity intrinsic to Industry 4.0 infrastructures presents formidable ethical and regulatory dilemmas. The aggregation of data from IoT ecosystems and the algorithmic decision-making capacities of AI systems raises urgent concerns regarding privacy, transparency, and fairness. Empirical studies have demonstrated how algorithmic biases in credit scoring, judicial risk assessments, and medical diagnoses can entrench existing inequalities when training datasets are unrepresentative [122].

Globally, regulators are grappling with foundational questions of accountability and liability: who bears responsibility for the outcomes of autonomous systems? How can algorithmic transparency be assured without compromising intellectual property? Initiatives such as the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act seek to establish risk-based classifications for AI systems, distinguishing between acceptable, high-risk, and prohibited applications [123]. Complementary ethical frameworks, such as the AI4People principles, emphasize beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and explicability as normative anchors for responsible innovation [124]. Nevertheless, operationalizing these guidelines across heterogeneous socio-technical environments remains a persistent challenge.

4.5 Linking technology stacks to public-value indicators

While the preceding sections emphasize the technological core of Industry 4.0 – AI, IoT, CPS, and optimization – its broader legitimacy rests on the extent to which these systems advance public value. Building on recent calls for human-centered innovation and sustainability-driven digitalization, this subsection outlines how key technologies translate into measurable indicators of societal impact. Three categories emerge as critical: human-centered, environmental, and resilience indicators.

  1. Human-centered indicators

    AI-driven decision support and CPS-enabled automation can improve service quality, but their societal value depends on their ability to enhance safety, equity, and workforce well-being. In health care, this may include metrics such as reduced surgical delays or improved patient safety. In logistics and smart cities, fairness of service allocation and inclusivity of access are equally relevant.

  2. Environmental indicators

    IoT-enabled sensing, combined with optimization frameworks, supports low-carbon operations. Applications range from predictive energy management in smart grids to AI-optimized last-mile CO2 delivery using electric vehicles, where measurable benefits include energy efficiency and reduction.

  3. Resilience indicators

    CPS architectures and learning-based optimization enhance adaptability under disruption. In practice, resilience can be expressed through metrics such as the continuity of operations during crises, the robustness of supply chains, or improved recovery times following system shocks.

Together, these categories provide a framework that aligns Industry 4.0 with societal objectives. Table 4 summarizes representative linkages between the technological pillars and public-value outcomes.

Technology pillar Human-centered indicators Environmental indicators Resilience indicators
AI Patient safety, fairness in service allocation, workforce support. Energy demand forecasting, waste reduction Adaptive scheduling, autonomous recovery from disruptions.
IoT Accessibility of services, real-time monitoring of health/labor conditions. Carbon tracking, resource efficiency in logistics. Redundancy through distributed sensing, continuity of monitoring.
CPS Human-machine collaboration, ergonomic safety Smart-grid balancing for sustainable energy. Robust infrastructure control, adaptive response in mobility systems.
Optimization algorithms Equitable scheduling, improved service quality. Route optimization for lower emissions. Scenario-based planning, multi-objective robustness under uncertainty.

Table 4.

Linking Industry 4.0 technology pillars with public-value indicators.

The mapping clarifies how technological building blocks contribute directly to human-centered, environmental, and resilience outcomes, reinforcing the manuscript’s broader emphasis on public value.


By embedding such indicators into evaluation frameworks, Industry 4.0 can be systematically assessed not only for operational efficiency but also for its contributions to inclusivity, sustainability, and resilience. This perspective strengthens the continuity between the technological analysis in Sections 2–3 and the societal transformation themes developed in Section 4.

Recent empirical work further illustrates how the technology stack translates into public-value outcomes. For example, a 2025 study of human-centered explainable AI in health care demonstrated improved clinician trust and decision transparency when AI systems are designed to reveal internal reasoning [125]. In urban logistics, Ferreira and Esperança (2025) report a 15–20% reduction in delivery times and up to 40% less CO2 emissions when combining EV fleets with AI optimization tools [111]. Meanwhile, local authorities in England increasingly prioritize decarbonization, viewing route optimization, electric fleets, and supportive policy as essential to sustainable last-mile delivery [126].

These findings corroborate our proposed indicator framework by showing how AI/IoT/CPS/optimization not only improve operational efficiency but also deliver measurable gains in equity, environmental sustainability, and system resilience.

4.6 The path forward: Toward an inclusive and sustainable future

While the societal implications of Industry 4.0 present significant challenges, they also offer opportunities for advancing inclusivity and sustainability. AI systems can be deliberately designed to audit and mitigate algorithmic bias, while IoT-enabled infrastructures enable more efficient energy management and waste reduction strategies [127]. Emerging research demonstrates that data-driven smart grids, for instance, can integrate renewable energy sources more effectively, supporting the dual goals of decarbonization and resilience.

The trajectory of Industry 4.0 will ultimately depend not only on technological affordances but also on governance choices and societal priorities. International cooperation will be essential to narrow digital divides, as unequal access to data infrastructures and advanced skills risks exacerbating global inequalities. Equally critical is the cultivation of citizen trust, which hinges on transparent governance, participatory oversight, and the embedding of human-centric design principles. As underscored in earlier sections, the most consequential question is not whether Industry 4.0 will transform societies, but whether such transformation will produce futures that are equitable, sustainable, and oriented toward collective well-being.

Dimension Driving forces Key challenges Future directions
Economic models Data-driven business, OaaS models, mass personalization. Unequal value distribution, risk of platform monopolies. Development of inclusive and shared-economy business models.
Workforce Automation, AI-human collaboration, and demand for digital skills. Skill gaps, structural unemployment. Modular re-skilling, cross-disciplinary education, lifelong learning.
Ethics and Governance Algorithmic decision-making, AI regulations. Bias and opacity, accountability issues. Human-centered design, global regulatory harmonization.
Social trust Digital governance, transparency, civic participation. Privacy risks, surveillance society concerns. Strengthening data sovereignty, participatory governance models.
Sustainability Smart energy, circular economy, ESG-driven innovation. Technology divide, externalized carbon footprint. Smart grids, low-carbon infrastructure, sustainable innovation.

Table 5.

The roadmap of societal transformation under Industry 4.0 links technological progress to economic, workforce, and ethical dimensions.

This roadmap explicitly outlines the trajectory from industrial innovation to broader social evolution, emphasizing the need for a balance between efficiency, inclusion, and sustainability.


Industry 4.0 is not merely reshaping technological infrastructures but also reconfiguring societal systems, economic models, and ethical frameworks. The themes explored in this section, ranging from industrial revolutions and workforce transformation to regulatory dilemmas and sustainability imperatives, highlight the multifaceted impact of this paradigm shift. To provide a synthesized perspective, Table 5 summarizes the five core dimensions discussed in this section, consolidating these insights and underscoring how Industry 4.0 transcends the boundaries of technology to become a driver of inclusive and sustainable societal transformation.

5. Conclusion

Ultimately, the trajectory of Industry 4.0 will be determined not only by technological advancement but also by the capacity of societies to govern, adapt, and innovate responsibly. The convergence of AI, IoT, optimization, and CPS offers unprecedented opportunities for efficiency and resilience, yet it also raises critical challenges related to equity, privacy, and trust. The extent to which Industry 4.0 contributes to sustainable development will depend on how effectively stakeholders align technological innovation with ethical principles, inclusive policies, and long-term societal goals. As this chapter has emphasized, the future of Industry 4.0 lies in fostering a balanced approach – one that embraces digital transformation while ensuring that its benefits are broadly shared, its risks are mitigated, and its legacy is one of progress that enhances human well-being on a global scale.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the use of AI to enhance the writing style and polish the manuscript’s language.

References

  1. 1. Mosleuzzaman M, Arif I, Siddiki A. Design and development of a smart factory using Industry 4.0 technologies. Academic Journal on Business Administration, Innovation & Sustainability. 2024;4(4):89–108. DOI: 10.69593/ajbais.v4i04.131
  2. 2. Liu CL, Weng PH, Tseng CJ. Harnessing heterogeneous graph neural networks for dynamic job-shop scheduling problem solutions. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2025;203:111060. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2024.111060
  3. 3. Jan Z, Ahamed F, Mayer W, Patel N, Grossmann G, Stumptner M, Kuusk A. Artificial intelligence for industry 4.0: Systematic review of applications, challenges, and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications. 2023;216:119456. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119456
  4. 4. Rahman MS, Ghosh T, Aurna NF, Kaiser MS, Anannya M, Hosen AS. Machine learning and internet of things in industry 4.0: A review. Measurement: Sensors. 2023;28:100822. DOI: 10.1016/j.measen.2023.100822
  5. 5. Ahmed A, Adam M, Guron A. Optimizing cloud-edge integration for task scheduling in smart manufacturing lines: A multi-objective method. Anbar Journal of Engineering Sciences. 2025;16(1):21–35. DOI: 10.37649/aengs.2025.156372.1120
  6. 6. Lang H, Zhang Z, Yang Q, Zhao Q. Design and implementation of intelligent oilfield monitoring and data transmission system based on cloud-edge collaboration technology. Journal of Computers. 2024;35(6):109–122. DOI: 10.53106/199115992024123506009
  7. 7. Ahsan MM, Siddique Z. Industry 4.0 in Healthcare: A systematic review. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights. 2022;2(1):100079. DOI: 10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100079
  8. 8. Zhang Y, Qiu M, Tsai CW, Hassan MM, Alamri A. Health-CPS: Healthcare cyber-physical system assisted by cloud and big data. IEEE Systems Journal. 2015;11(1):88–95. DOI: 10.1109/JSYST.2015.2460747
  9. 9. Talbi EG. A taxonomy of metaheuristics for bi-level optimization. In: Talbi EG, editors. Metaheuristics for Bi-level Optimization. Studies in Computational Intelligence. 2013;482. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1–39. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-37838-6_1
  10. 10. Bousdekis A, Magoutas B, Apostolou D, Mentzas G. Review, analysis and synthesis of prognostic-based decision support methods for condition based maintenance. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2018;29(6):1303–1316. DOI: 10.1007/s10845-015-1179-5
  11. 11. Woschank M, Rauch E, Zsifkovits H. A review of further directions for artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning in smart logistics. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3760. DOI: 10.3390/su12093760
  12. 12. Akkad MZ, Bányai T. Energy consumption optimization of milk-run-based in-plant supply solutions: An Industry 4.0 approach. Processes. 2023;11(3):799. DOI: 10.3390/pr11030799
  13. 13. Wang X, Dong F. The dynamic relationships among growth in the logistics industry, energy consumption, and carbon emission: Recent evidence from China. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology. 2023;13(1):487–502. DOI: 10.1007/s13202-022-01696-2
  14. 14. Ma S, Huang Y, Chen Y, Xiao Q, Xu J, Leng J. Edge-cloud cooperation driven intelligent sustainability evaluation strategy based on IoT and CPS for energy-intensive manufacturing industries. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2024. DOI: 10.1109/JIOT.2024.3520612
  15. 15. Khadka U, Hossain S, Sarkar S, Khan N. Cyber-physical systems and IoT: Transforming smart cities for sustainable development. AIJMR-Advanced International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research. 2024;2(5). DOI: 10.12345/aijmr.2024.v02i05.1106
  16. 16. Yue X, Xiong X, Xu X, Zhang M. Big data for furniture intelligent manufacturing: Conceptual framework, technologies, applications, and challenges. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2024;132(11-12):5231–5247. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-024-13719-0
  17. 17. Ning S, Fang Y, Shi Y, Zhang K, Yu C. An improved non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II with neighbourhood search for the multi-objective flexible job-shop problem considering limited automated guided vehicles. Engineering Optimization. 2025;1–29. DOI: 10.1080/0305215X.2025.2410260
  18. 18. Jalali Khalil Abadi Z, Mansouri N. A comprehensive survey on scheduling algorithms using fuzzy systems in distributed environments. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2024;57(1):4. DOI: 10.1007/s10462-023-10632-y
  19. 19. Liu CL, Tseng CJ, Weng PH. Dynamic job-shop scheduling via graph attention networks and deep reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 2024;20(6):8662–8672. DOI: 10.1109/TII.2023.3320122
  20. 20. Eswaran U, Eswaran V, Murali K, Eswaran V. Data analytics and visualization using digital twins. In: Sailesh, I, Anand, N, Anand, P, and Mohd, N. Digital Twins for Smart Cities and Villages. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2025. p. 537–559. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-28884-5.00023-3
  21. 21. Nti IK, Adekoya AF, Weyori BA, Nyarko-Boateng O. Applications of artificial intelligence in engineering and manufacturing: a systematic review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2022;33(6):1581–1601. DOI: 10.1007/s10845-021-01771-6
  22. 22. Arinez JF, Chang Q, Gao RX, Xu C, Zhang J. Artificial intelligence in advanced manufacturing: current status and future outlook. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering. 2020;142(11):110804. DOI: 10.1115/1.4047855
  23. 23. He M, Petering M, LaCasse P, Otieno W, Maturana F. Learning with supervised data for anomaly detection in smart manufacturing. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 2023;36(9):1331–1344. DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2023.2215740
  24. 24. Gade K, Geyik S, Kenthapadi K, Mithal V, Taly A. Explainable AI in industry: Practical challenges and lessons learned. In: Companion proceedings of the Web Conference. 2020. p. 303–304
  25. 25. Nguyen DC, Ding M, Pathirana PN, Seneviratne A, Li J, Poor HV. Federated learning for internet of things: A comprehensive survey. IEEE communications surveys & tutorials. 2021;23(3):1622–1658. DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2021.3075439
  26. 26. Kusiak A. Smart manufacturing must embrace big data. Nature. 2022;604:442–446. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-01056-5
  27. 27. Mbonye V, Padayachee, I, and Subramaniam, PR. An integrated conceptual model to secure digitally enabled smart grid towards sustainable energy. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development. 2022;16:3-4 400–424. DOI: 10.1504/IJISD.2022.123849
  28. 28. Gayap HT, Akhloufi MA. Deep machine learning for medical diagnosis, application to lung cancer detection: A review. BioMedInformatics. 2024;4(1):236–284. DOI: 10.3390/biomedinformatics4010012
  29. 29. Bashir AK, Victor N, Bhattacharya S, Huynh-The T, Chengoden R, Yenduri G, et al. Federated learning for the healthcare metaverse: Concepts, applications, challenges, and future directions. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2023;10(24):21873–21891. DOI: 10.1109/JIOT.2023.3260959
  30. 30. Ishtiaq M, Saeed N, Khan MA. Edge computing in the Internet of Things: A 6G perspective. IT Professional. 2024;26(5):62–70. DOI: 10.1109/MITP.2024.3366778
  31. 31. Chi HR. Edge computing for the internet of things. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks. 2023;12(1):17. DOI: 10.3390/jsan12010017
  32. 32. Ishtiaq M, Saeed N, Khan MA. Edge computing in the Internet of Things: A 6G perspective. IT Professional. 2024;26(5):62–70. DOI: 10.1109/MITP.2024.3425486
  33. 33. Leong WY. Digital twin models for real-time failure prediction in industrial machinery. ASM Science Journal. 2025;20(1):1–8. DOI: 10.32802/asmscj.2025.1923
  34. 34. Liu CL, Tseng CJ, Huang TH, Yang JS, Huang KB. A multi-task learning model for building electrical load prediction. Energy and Buildings. 2023;278:112601. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112601
  35. 35. Chen Z, Sivaparthipan CB, Muthu B. IoT based smart and intelligent smart city energy optimization. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2022;49:101724. DOI: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101724
  36. 36. Govindan K, Mina H, Alavi B. A decision support system for demand management in healthcare supply chains considering the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-objective optimization approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2021;159:107475. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107475
  37. 37. Bharadiya JP. The role of machine learning in transforming business intelligence. International Journal of Computing and Artificial Intelligence. 2023;4(1):16–24. DOI: 10.33545/27076571.2023.v4.i1a.60
  38. 38. Chowdhury RH. Harnessing machine learning in business analytics for enhanced decision-making. World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences. 2024;12(2):674–683. DOI: 10.30574/wjaets.2024.12.2.0341
  39. 39. Bharadiya JP. The role of machine learning in transforming business intelligence. International Journal of Computing and Artificial Intelligence. 2023;4(1):16–24. DOI: 10.33545/27076571.2023.v4.i1a.60
  40. 40. Chowdhury RH. Harnessing machine learning in business analytics for enhanced decision-making. World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences. 2024;12(2):674–683. DOI: 10.30574/wjaets.2024.12.2.0341
  41. 41. Aljabali BA, Shelton J, Desai S. Genetic algorithm-based data-driven process selection system for additive manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Materials. 2024;17(18):4544. DOI: 10.3390/ma17184544
  42. 42. Kosanoglu F, Atmis M, Turan HH. A deep reinforcement learning assisted simulated annealing algorithm for a maintenance planning problem. Annals of Operations Research. 2024;339(1):79–110. DOI: 10.1007/s10479-024-06114-9
  43. 43. Bhimana S, Ravindran S. Swarm intelligence: Applications and implementations in autonomous systems. In: Uwe S, Christoph, L, editors. Collective Intelligence. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2024. p. 21–57. DOI: 10.1201/9781032690711
  44. 44. Fan H, Duan S, Weng X, Zhang J, Yun L. An integer model for optimizing dynamic allocation of medical supplies during the COVID-19. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization. 2026;51(1):4. DOI: 10.1007/s10878-025-01380-6
  45. 45. Liu CL, Tseng CJ, Huang TH, Wang JW. Dynamic parallel machine scheduling with deep Q-network. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems. 2023;53(11):6792–6804. DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.2022.3147962
  46. 46. Piperigkos N, Gkillas A, Arvanitis G, Nousias S, Lalos A, Fournaris A, Radoglou-Grammatikis P, Sarigiannidis P, Moustakas K. Distributed intelligence in industrial and automotive cyber-physical systems: a review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2024;11:1430740. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2024.1430740
  47. 47. Nkesah SK. Making road freight transport more sustainable: Insights from a systematic literature review. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 2023;22:100967. DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2023.100967
  48. 48. Piperigkos N, Gkillas A, Arvanitis G, Nousias S, Lalos A, Fournaris A, et al. Distributed intelligence in industrial and automotive cyber–physical systems: A review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2024;11:1430740. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2024.1430740
  49. 49. Kumar R, Sangwan KS, Herrmann C, Thakur S. A cyber-physical production system framework for online monitoring, visualization and control by using cloud, fog, and edge computing technologies. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 2023;36(10):1507–1525. DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2023.2232171
  50. 50. Sharma M, Tomar A, Hazra A. Edge computing for Industry 5.0: Fundamentals, applications, and research challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2024;11(11):19070–19093. DOI: 10.1109/JIOT.2024.3371052
  51. 51. Saxena A, Singh R, Gehlot A, Akram SV, Twala B, Singh A, Montero EC, Priyadarshi N. Technologies empowered environmental, social, and governance (ESG): An Industry 4.0 landscape. Sustainability. 2022;15(1):309. DOI: 10.3390/su15010309
  52. 52. Yang G, et al. Medical robotics––Regulatory, ethical, and legal considerations for increasing levels of autonomy. Science Robotics. 2021;6(54):eabi8017. DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.abi8017
  53. 53. Saxena A, Singh R, Gehlot A, Akram SV, Twala B, Singh A, et al. Technologies empowered environmental, social, and governance (ESG): An Industry 4.0 landscape. Sustainability. 2022;15(1):309. DOI: 10.3390/su15010309
  54. 54. Mehrabi N, Morstatter F, Saxena N, Lerman K, Galstyan AA. survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys. 2021;54(6):1–35. DOI: 10.1145/3457607
  55. 55. Laux J, Wachter S, Mittelstadt B. Trustworthy artificial intelligence and the European Union AI Act: On the conflation of trustworthiness and acceptability of risk. Regulation and Governance. 2024;18(1):3–32. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12512
  56. 56. Mehrabi N, et al. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys. 2022;54(6):1–35. DOI: 10.1145/3457607
  57. 57. Laux J, Wachter S, Mittelstadt B. Trustworthy artificial intelligence and the European Union AI Act: On the conflation of trustworthiness and acceptability of risk. Regulation and Governance. 2024;18(1):3–32. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12516
  58. 58. Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V, et al. AI4People––An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines. 2022;32(2):147–174. DOI: 10.1007/s11023-022-09592-8
  59. 59. Tonekaboni S, Joshi S, McCradden MD, Goldenberg A. What clinicians want: Contextualizing explainable machine learning for clinical end use. Machine Learning. 2022;111:2369–2389. DOI: 10.1007/s10994-021-06034-2
  60. 60. Van Twist A, Ruijer E, Meijer A. Smart cities & citizen discontent: A systematic review of the literature. Government Information Quarterly. 2023;40(2):101799. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101799
  61. 61. Uddin R, Koo I. Real-time remote patient monitoring: A review of biosensors integrated with multi-hop IoT systems via cloud connectivity. Applied Sciences. 2024;14(5):1876. DOI: 10.3390/app14051876
  62. 62. Aldosari MO, Aldosari MSS, Aldwai AN, Alhaj MAM, Fah FD, Almarzzouk SAS, et al. The long-term effects of continuous health monitoring devices on patient outcomes: An epidemiological perspective on infectious disease. Egyptian Journal of Chemistry. 2024;67(13):1439–1447. DOI: 10.21608/ejchem.2024.332983.10719
  63. 63. Nicolucci A, Romeo L, Bernardini M, Vespasiani M, Rossi MC, Petrelli M, et al. Prediction of complications of type 2 diabetes: A machine learning approach. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2022;190:110013. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.110013
  64. 64. Rinty MR, Prodhan UK, Rahman MM. A prospective interoperable distributed e-Health system with loose coupling in improving healthcare services for developing countries. Array. 2022;13:100114. DOI: 10.1016/j.array.2021.100114
  65. 65. Sistaninejhad B, Rasi H, Nayeri P. A review paper about deep learning for medical image analysis. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2023;2023(1):7091301. DOI: 10.1016/C2020-0-00339-3
  66. 66. Ardila D, Kiraly AP, Bharadwaj S, et al. End-to-end lung cancer screening with three-dimensional deep learning on low-dose chest computed tomography. Nature Medicine. 2019;25:954–961
  67. 67. Sheller MJ, Edwards B, Reina GA, Martin J, Bakas S. Federated learning in medicine: Facilitating multi-institutional collaborations without sharing patient data. Scientific Reports. 2022;12:469. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-04504-8
  68. 68. Kaissis G, Makowski MR, Rückert D, Braren RF. Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2020;2(6):305–311. DOI: 10.1038/s42256-020-0186-1
  69. 69. Tonekaboni S, Joshi S, McCradden MD, Goldenberg A. What clinicians want: Contextualizing explainable machine learning for clinical end use. In: Proceedings of the Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference; 18–19 October 2019; Ann Arbor, MI, USA: PMLR; 2019. p. 359–380. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-021-00449-9
  70. 70. Cardoen B, Demeulemeester E, Beliën J. Operating room planning and scheduling: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research. 2010;201(3):921–932. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.04.011
  71. 71. Girishan Prabhu V, Taaffe KM. Hybrid modelling approach using reinforcement learning in conjunction with simulation: A case study of an emergency department. In: Fakhimi M, Mustafee N, editors. Hybrid Modeling and Simulation. Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications. Cham: Springer; 2024. p. 231–249. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-59999-6_12
  72. 72. El Arab RA, Al Moosa OA. The role of AI in emergency department triage: An integrative systematic review. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing. 2025;89:104058. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2024.104058
  73. 73. Currie CS, Fowler JW, Kotiadis K, et al. How simulation modelling can help reduce the impact of COVID-19. Journal of Simulation. 2020;14(2):83–97. DOI: 10.1080/17477778.2020.1751570
  74. 74. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366(6464):447–453. DOI: 10.1126/science.aax2342
  75. 75. Hussain F, Hussain R, Hassan SA, Hossain E. Machine learning in IoT security: Current solutions and future challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials. 2020;22(3):1686–1721. DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2020.2986444
  76. 76. Pal K. A decentralized privacy preserving healthcare blockchain for IoT, challenges, and solutions. In: Malaya Dutta B, Peng Z, Ganesh Chandra D, editors. Prospects of Blockchain Technology for Accelerating Scientific Advancement in Healthcare. Hershey, PA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2022. p. 158–188. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-9606-7.ch008
  77. 77. Gerke S, Minssen T, Cohen G. Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence-driven healthcare. In: Bohr A, Memarzadeh K, editors. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare. London: Academic Press; 2020. p. 295–336. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818438-7.00012-5
  78. 78. Werbińska-Wojciechowska S, Giel R, Winiarska K. Digital twin approach for operation and maintenance of transportation system––Systematic review. Sensors. 2024;24(18):6069. DOI: 10.3390/s24186069
  79. 79. Adewusi AO, Komolafe AM, Ejairu E, Aderotoye IA, Abiona OO, Oyeniran OC. The role of predictive analytics in optimizing supply chain resilience: A review of techniques and case studies. International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship Research. 2024;6(3):815–837. DOI: 10.51594/ijmer.v6i3.844
  80. 80. Yao Q, Zhu S, Li Y. Green vehicle-routing problem of fresh agricultural products considering carbon emission. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(14):8675. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148675
  81. 81. Félix-Cigalat JS, Domingo R. Towards a digital twin warehouse through the optimization of internal transport. Applied Sciences. 2023;13(8):4652. DOI: 10.3390/app13084652
  82. 82. Cai H, Xu P, Tang X, Lin G. Solving the vehicle routing problem with stochastic travel cost using deep reinforcement learning. Electronics. 2024;13(16):3242. DOI: 10.3390/electronics13163242
  83. 83. Chupin A, Ragas AAMA, Bolsunovskaya M, Leksashov A, Shirokova S. Multi-objective optimization for intermodal freight transportation planning: A sustainable service network design approach. Sustainability. 2025;17(12):5541. DOI: 10.3390/su17125541
  84. 84. Cai H, Xu P, Tang X, Lin G. Solving the vehicle routing problem with stochastic travel cost using deep reinforcement learning. Electronics. 2024;13:3242. DOI: 10.3390/electronics13163242
  85. 85. Kalafatelis AS, Nomikos N, Giannopoulos A, Alexandridis G, Karditsa A, Trakadas P. Towards predictive maintenance in the maritime industry: A component-based overview. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2025;13(3):425. DOI: 10.3390/jmse13030425
  86. 86. Wang K, Xu H, Wang H, Qiu R, Hu Q, Liu X. Digital twin-driven safety management and decision support approach for port operations and logistics. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2024;11:1455522. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2024.1455522
  87. 87. Abdu B, James N, Nathan RJ. Reimagining last-mile delivery: Leveraging put-to-light systems in micro fulfillment centers. Polish Journal of Management Studies. 2024;30(1):7–23. DOI: 10.17512/pjms.2024.30.1.01
  88. 88. Xi H, Liu W, Waller ST, Hensher DA, Hensher DA, Kilby P, Rey D. Incentive-compatible mechanisms for online resource allocation in Mobility-as-a-Service systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 2023;170:119–147. DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2023.02.011
  89. 89. Zhang H, Sun J, Liu W, Li Z, Gong Y. Multi-objective deep reinforcement learning for adaptive traffic signal control with decarbonization. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2024;199:107451. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2023.107451
  90. 90. Xi H, Liu W, Waller ST, Hensher DA, Kilby P, Rey D. Incentive-compatible mechanisms for online resource allocation in Mobility-as-a-Service systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 2023;170:119–147. DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2023.02.011
  91. 91. Li J, Chen Z, Zhu H, Zhu R, Yu B, Li X, et al. A bi-objective pollution routing optimisation problem. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2024;25(10):12536–12549. DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2024.3421949
  92. 92. Zhou L, Zhou Y, Liu L, Zhao X. A comparative study of different deep learning methods for time-series probabilistic residential load power forecasting. Frontiers in Energy Research. 2024;12:1490152. DOI: 10.3389/fenrg.2024.1490152
  93. 93. Wen X, Liao J, Niu Q, Shen N, Bao Y. Deep learning-driven hybrid model for short-term load forecasting and smart grid information management. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):13720. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63262-x
  94. 94. Zhou L, Zhou Y, Liu L, Zhao X. A comparative study of deep learning methods for time-series probabilistic residential load power forecasting. Frontiers in Energy Research. 2024;12:1490152. DOI: 10.3389/fenrg.2024.1490152
  95. 95. Boumaiza A. Design and implementation of a blockchain-enabled transactive energy market. IEEE Access. 2024;12:143118–143130. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3440180
  96. 96. Masood MY, Aurangzeb S, Aleem M, Chilwan A, Awais M. Demand-side load forecasting in smart grids using machine learning techniques. PeerJ Computer Science. 2024;10:e1987. DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1987
  97. 97. Ameni B. Design and implementation of a blockchain-enabled transactive energy market. IEEE Access. 2024;12:143118–143130. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3440180
  98. 98. Hosseini P, Taheri S, Akhavan J, Razban A. Privacy-preserving federated learning: Application to behind-the-meter solar photovoltaic generation forecasting. Energy Conversion and Management. 2023;283:116900. DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116900
  99. 99. Felici-Castell S, Segura-Garcia J, Perez-Solano JJ, Fayos-Jordan R, Soriano-Asensi A, Alcaraz-Calero JM. AI-IoT low-cost pollution-monitoring sensor network to assist citizens with respiratory problems. Sensors. 2023;23(23):9585. DOI: 10.3390/s23239585
  100. 100. De Vito S, Del Giudice A, D’Elia G, Esposito E, Fattoruso G, Ferlito S, Formisano F, Loffredo G, Massera E, D’Auria P, Di Francia G. Future low-cost urban air quality monitoring networks: insights from the EU’s AirHeritage project. Atmosphere. 2024;15(11):1351. DOI: 10.3390/atmos15111351
  101. 101. Ekeh AH, Apeh CE, Odionu CS, Austin-Gabriel B. Leveraging machine learning for environmental policy innovation: advances in data analytics to address urban and ecological challenges. Gulf Journal of Advance Business Research. 2025;3(2):456–482. DOI: 10.51594/gjabr.v3i2.92
  102. 102. Sugianto N, Tjondronegoro D, Stockdale R, Yuwono EI. Privacy-preserving AI-enabled video surveillance for social distancing: Responsible design and deployment for public spaces. Information Technology and People. 2024;37(2):998–1022. DOI: 10.1108/ITP-07-2020-0534
  103. 103. Zhang B, Ouyang C, Cui P, Xu Q, Wang D, Zhang F, Li Z, Fan LF, Lovati M, Liu YL, Zhang Q. Deep learning for cross-region streamflow and flood forecasting at a global scale. The Innovation. 2024;5(3):100617. DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100617
  104. 104. Singh S, Ahmed AI, Almansoori S, Alameri S, Adlan A, Odivilas G, Chattaway MA, Salem SB, Brudecki G, Elamin W. A narrative review of wastewater surveillance: Pathogens of concern, applications, detection methods, and challenges. Frontiers in Public Health. 2024;12:1445961. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1445961
  105. 105. Labadie C, Legner C. Building data management capabilities to address data protection regulations: Learnings from EU-GDPR. Journal of Information Technology. 2023;38(1):16–44. DOI: 10.1177/02683962221113272
  106. 106. Wulf AJ, Seizov O. “Please understand we cannot provide further information”: Evaluating content and transparency of GDPR-mandated AI disclosures. AI & Society. 2024;39(1):235–256. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-023-01661-9
  107. 107. Almasoud AS, Idowu JA. Algorithmic fairness in predictive policing. AI and Ethics. 2025;5(3):2323–2337. DOI: 10.1007/s43681-024-00487-9
  108. 108. Abreha HG, Hayajneh M, Serhani MA. Federated learning in edge computing: A systematic survey. Sensors. 2022;22(2):450. DOI: 10.3390/s22020450
  109. 109. Albshaier L, Almarri S, Albuali A. Federated learning for cloud and edge security: A systematic review of challenges and AI opportunities. Electronics. 2025;14(5):1019. DOI: 10.3390/electronics14051019
  110. 110. Vladu A, Ghitea TC, Daina LG, Țîrț DP, Daina MD. Enhancing operating room efficiency: The impact of computational algorithms on surgical scheduling and team dynamics. Healthcare. 2024;12(9):1906. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12191906
  111. 111. Ferreira JC, Esperança M. Enhancing sustainable last-mile delivery: The impact of electric vehicles and ai optimization on urban logistics. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2025;16(5):242. DOI: 10.3390/wevj16050242
  112. 112. Wang D, Li W, Zhu L, Pan J. Learning to change: Choreographing mixed traffic through lateral control and hierarchical reinforcement learning. arXiv Preprint. 2024; 2403.14879. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.14879
  113. 113. Hassoun A, At-Kaddour A, Abu-Mahfouz AM, Rathod NB, Bader F, Barba FJ, Regenstein J. The fourth industrial revolution in the food industry––Part I: Industry 4.0 technologies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2023;63(23):6547–6563. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2093087
  114. 114. Mhlanga D. Human-centered artificial intelligence: The superlative approach to achieve sustainable development goals in the fourth industrial revolution. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):7804. DOI: 10.3390/su14137804
  115. 115. Rainnie A, Herod A, McGrath-Champ S. Industry 4.0 and the Future of Work: Global Production Networks, Global Disassembly Networks, and the Circular Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2024. p. 224 DOI: 10.4337/9781035316942
  116. 116. Cities R, Li XS. Building Digital Twin Metaverse Cities. Berkeley (CA): Apress; 2024. p. 240 DOI: 10.1007/979-8-8688-0249-7
  117. 117. Ahokangas P, Atkova I, Yrjölä S, Matinmikko-Blue M. Business model theory and the becoming of new mobile communications technologies. In: Foss NJ, Saebi T, editors. Business Model Innovation: Game Changers and Contemporary Issues. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2024. p. 263–293. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-50674-0_14
  118. 118. Zhou H. Intelligent personalized content recommendations based on neural networks. International Journal of Intelligent Networks. 2023;4:231–239. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijin.2023.09.001
  119. 119. Haris M, Saad S, Rasheed K, Ammad S, Oad VK. Navigating ethical and social implications in digital twins and robotics. In: Khan R, editor. Applications of Digital Twins and Robotics in the Construction Sector. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2024. p. 195–215. DOI: 10.1201/9781003402846-12
  120. 120. Shukla MK, Malik N. Role of socio-emotional intelligence learning system in multi-ethnic society: Context of India. Journal of Marketing and Social Research. 2025;2:292–300. DOI: 10.61336/jmsr/25-03-36
  121. 121. Jolly P. Innovation, enterprise and physics education: Weaving paradigms for world of work. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2024;2727(1):012015. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/2727/1/012015
  122. 122. Andrae S. Fairness and bias in machine learning models for credit decisions. In: Singh A, editor. Machine Learning and Modeling Techniques in Financial Data Science. Hershey (PA): IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2025. p. 1–24. DOI: 10.4018/9781668499914.ch001
  123. 123. Ebers M. Truly risk-based regulation of artificial intelligence: How to implement the EU’s AI Act. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2025;16(2):684–703. DOI: 10.1017/err.2025.6
  124. 124. Sharma R, Loucif S, Shaikh AA. Implementing responsible AI: A life-cycle reference model based on FATES principles. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management. 2025;24(2):2550078. DOI: 10.1142/S0219649225500786
  125. 125. Van Leersum CM, Maathuis C. Human-centred explainable AI decision-making in healthcare. Journal of Responsible Technology. 2025;21:100108. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrt.2025.100108
  126. 126. Paddeu D, Beecroft M, Fenton G, Wong E, Zunder T. Decarbonising last-mile deliveries: When the national policy meets local authority practice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2025;195:104435. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2025.104435
  127. 127. Ahmetoglu S, Che Cob Z, Ali NA. A systematic review of Internet of Things adoption in organizations: Taxonomy, benefits, challenges and critical factors. Applied Sciences. 2022;12(9):4117. DOI: 10.3390/app12094117

Written By

Chun-Jan Tseng and Ming-Han Chang

Submitted: 11 September 2025 Reviewed: 19 September 2025 Published: 03 February 2026

© 2026 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All

Your cart

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Subtotal €0.00

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: orders@intechopen.com