Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38927427›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2024

Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Emergency Medicine: Applications, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.

Lorenzo Di Sarno, Anya Caroselli, Giovanna Tonin, Benedetta Graglia, Valeria Pansini, Francesco Andrea Causio, Antonio Gatto, Antonio Chiaretti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Pediatrics 4.0: the Transformative Impacts of the Latest Industrial Revolution on Pediatrics.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lorenzo Di SarnoDepartment of Pediatrics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4837-9297
Anya CaroselliDepartment of Pediatrics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Giovanna ToninDepartment of Pediatrics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Benedetta GragliaDepartment of Pediatrics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Valeria PansiniDepartment of Pediatrics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Francesco Andrea CausioThe Italian Society of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (SIIAM), 00165 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6545-3196
Antonio GattoThe Italian Society of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (SIIAM), 00165 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8778-9328
Antonio ChiarettiDepartment of Pediatrics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dawn of Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare stands as a milestone in medical innovation. Different medical fields are heavily involved, and pediatric emergency medicine is no exception. We conducted a narrative review structured in two parts. The first part explores the theoretical principles of AI, providing all the necessary background to feel confident with these new state-of-the-art tools. The second part presents an informative analysis of AI models in pediatric emergencies. We examined PubMed and Cochrane Library from inception up to April 2024. Key applications include triage optimization, predictive models for traumatic brain injury assessment, and computerized sepsis prediction systems. In each of these domains, AI models outperformed standard methods. The main barriers to a widespread adoption include technological challenges, but also ethical issues, age-related differences in data interpretation, and the paucity of comprehensive datasets in the pediatric context. Future feasible research directions should address the validation of models through prospective datasets with more numerous sample sizes of patients. Furthermore, our analysis shows that it is essential to tailor AI algorithms to specific medical needs. This requires a close partnership between clinicians and developers. Building a shared knowledge platform is therefore a key step.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep learningmachine learningpediatric emergency medicinepediatrics

Identifiers

PMID38927427
PMCPMC11200597

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.