ReviewCureus2025
Transparency and Validity of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Pediatric Diabetes: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Digital Tools for Diabetes Self-management in Children: A Scoping Review.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2027Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant promise for improving pediatric diabetes management, but its clinical adoption hinges on transparency and validity. Despite growing interest in AI applications, systematic evaluations of these critical aspects remain scarce. This systematic review examines the transparency and validity of AI applications in pediatric diabetes, assessing methodological rigor, reporting standards, and clinical readiness. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we searched Scopus, PubMed, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore, Web of Science, and Embase for studies employing AI in pediatric diabetes. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria after screening 308 records. Data were extracted on AI methodologies, transparency indicators, and validation approaches. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Included studies addressed diverse AI applications, including glucose prediction, hypoglycemia risk assessment, and insulin dosing optimization. Transparency varied widely: 60% of studies disclosed algorithm details, while others omitted critical methodological information. Validation methods ranged from in silico (computer-based) simulations to independent cohorts, but only 30% incorporated external validation. Performance metrics included area under the curve (AUC) and clinical accuracy. Risk of bias was low in 60% of studies, though concerns arose from algorithmic opacity and small validation cohorts. While AI demonstrates potential in pediatric diabetes, inconsistent transparency and insufficient validation limit clinical translation. Future research must prioritize standardized reporting, multicenter validation, and diverse populations to ensure reliability and equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.