Thanks for being here. I haven't updated my homepage in so long.
I'm currently doing my masters and also working with gen AI and PLCs.
I'm always open to doing research!
Please reach out on my personal email:
reem.alsharabi (AT) outlook.com

Update — September 25, 2026:
I finished my MSc and started working as a Specialist AI Engineer.

However, I'm thinking about coming back to this site and writing some technical reports / small (non-peer-reviewed) articles about women's health research. I've been reading a lot of papers about Digital Health ∩ Women's Health ∩ AI, and interacting with women online about (especially, or actually only) endometriosis, and of course its sister, adenomyosis. Research does exist, but there are a lot of gaps.

See my Instagram comment below (not so scientific, I know, but I'm not trying to publish a paper here — I'm just diving deep into something I find interesting, yet, unfortunately, sad, where I hope I have some knowledge about reading a paper and judging whether I can trust it as a source of information or not, especially with all the social media influencers who want to make money out of chronically ill women), about this paper referenced by a content creator.

In the 2025 paper, the "endometrial stromal cell" are actually just HESCs (human endometrial stromal cells) which are cells from normal ectopic endometrium, not cells isolated from actual ectopic endometriosis lesions (EESCs).

Yet in the discussion and figures, the authors interchangeably refer to these HESC results as showing effects on "EESCs" and "endometrial lesions," which blurs the line between what was actually tested (normal endometrium‑derived cells) and what's being concluded (effects on the disease tissue itself).