## 2 Approach to Study Selection
### Assessment Process  
Each study included in the analysis was reviewed by two independent assessors (A.L. and D.G. ), who evaluated the studies based on their focus on the integration of SASRs in medical applications. The predefined assessment criteria included Clarity of Rationale, Study Design Appropriateness, methodological rigor, Result Presentation, Justification of Conclusions, and disclosure of conflicts of interest. Each criterion was rated on a predefined scale to provide a quantitative measure of the quality and relevance of the analyzed studies. The assessors independently reviewed the studies and assigned scores to each parameter, ensuring that evaluations were conducted based on standardized guidelines. This dual-assessment approach was designed to enhance the reliability of the review by incorporating different perspectives and reducing the risk of individual bias influencing the evaluation process. In cases where discrepancies arose in scores or study inclusion decisions, a third assessor (selected on a rotating basis from A.P or A.I.) was involved to adjudicate the final decision. The role of the third assessor was crucial in resolving conflicts and ensuring that \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline
**Keyword** & **Justification** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Social Robots”} & A broad term for robots designed to engage in social interactions with humans, including communication, emotional expression, and companionship. They are used in healthcare, education, and customer service. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Assistance Robots”} & Robots designed to aid humans in various tasks, including personal assistance, healthcare support, household help, and workplace automation. They can assist individuals with disabilities, elderly people, or workers in logistics and service industries. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Humanoid Robots”} & Robots with human-like appearance and behavior, designed to facilitate natural interaction through gestures, speech, and facial expressions. They are frequently used in research on human-robot interactions. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Assistive Robotics”} & Robots that support individuals with disabilities, elderly populations, or patients in rehabilitation. These robots provide physical or cognitive assistance and improve quality of life. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Human–Robot Interaction”} & The study of how humans and robots communicate, collaborate, and build relationships. A crucial field in assessing usability, acceptance, and ethical concerns of robotic systems. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Companion Robots”} & Robots designed to provide emotional and social support, often used to alleviate loneliness in elderly individuals or offer companionship in therapeutic settings. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Healthcare Robotics”} & Application of robots in medical environments, including patient care, surgical assistance, rehabilitation, and mental health support. It improves healthcare efficiency and accessibility. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Therapeutic Robots”} & Robots used in psychological and medical therapy, such as reducing anxiety in children with autism or improving cognitive engagement in dementia patients. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Educational Robotics”} & The use of robots as teaching tools in classrooms or for personalized learning, especially in STEM education and early childhood development. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{“Trust in Robots”} & The study of human confidence in robotic systems, influenced by reliability, transparency, and social behaviors of robots. It is critical for integration into daily life. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Keywords used in the search. decisions were fair and well founded. This additional level of scrutiny helped balance differing opinions and reinforced the integrity of the review process. A multi-assessor approach was implemented to minimize bias and ensure a rigorous and balanced evaluation of the literature.