ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026
Machine learning for predicting clinical outcomes of hospitalised children: a systematic review of applications in low- and middle-income countries.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Surveillance-Driven Machine Learning for Prediction of Antimicrobial Susceptibility: An Explainable Modeling Framework using the Pfizer ATLAS Dataset (2004 - 2023).Wellcome open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine Learning (ML) can contribute to reducing child mortality and morbidity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet its development and clinical adoption remain unclear. This systematic review provides an overview of ML for hospitalised children in LMICs. Methods: In June 2025, searches in five scientific databases and one scholarly search engine identified 26 eligible peer-reviewed studies using ML on hospitalised children under 18. Studies using only conventional statistics and perinatal data were excluded. Study quality and bias were assessed using PROBAST + AI. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. PRISMA reporting guideline was followed. Findings: These studies were conducted in Asia (58%) and Sub-Saharan Africa (38%), mostly retrospective (62%), and predominantly used patient files (62%). The median sample size was 1291. Prognostic models dominated (69%), primarily targeting mortality (50%). Ensemble methods were most common (50%). The median AUROC was 0.81 (IQR 0.78-0.83). Most models were at a clinical Readiness Level 3-4 (81%). Barriers and facilitators related to data (65%, 34% respectively), implementation (50%, 77%), technology (31%, 42%), and human (19%, 35%) were reported. Interpretation: We provided evidence of ML's promising performance for LMICs. Mortality prediction was the main focus. Arriving at clinical applications that benefit LMICs, requires investment in high-quality data and alignment to local (clinical) needs. Funding: This project is part of the EDCTP2 programme (grant number RIA2020I-3294 IMPALA) supported by the European Union.
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.