ArticleJAMA network open2026
Large Language Models Using Clinical Text in Pediatrics: A Scoping Review.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Child-Centred Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Emergency Medicine: A Perspective on Clinical Decision Support, Stakeholder Engagement and Education.Pediatric reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Transparent Quality-of-Care Measurement in Children with ADHD.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models in neonatal resuscitation assessments versus healthcare providers: an exploratory study.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to analyze clinical data, primarily clinical text, with an increasing emphasis on integration in health care. However, the use of LLMs in pediatric care remains underexplored. Objective: To map the emerging literature on LLM use in pediatrics involving clinical text and identify evidence gaps and future directions for implementation and evaluation. Evidence Review: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and preprint servers were searched for English-language original research published from January 1, 2020, to July 1, 2025. Included studies used modern transformer-based LLMs with pediatric clinical text as input. Two reviewers independently screened studies using predefined criteria. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by another. Findings were descriptively synthesized, and adherence to the Minimum Information for Medical AI Reporting (MINIMAR) standards was assessed. Findings: The review included 40 studies published between 2023 and 2025. Twenty-three studies were conducted in the US, and all were retrospective observational studies using clinical data from sources such as electronic health records. Participant sample sizes ranged from 10 to 172 683. Although all pediatric age subgroups were represented, early childhood populations (aged 0-5 years) were underrepresented. The most common LLM clinical applications were diagnostic decision support in 24 studies (60.0%) and treatment planning in 7 studies (17.5%). Although all 40 studies conducted clinical evaluation of LLMs and 30 included discussions of ethics or data privacy, 39 studies (97.5%) did not meet full MINIMAR standards, 34 (85.0%) did not report use of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant models, and 30 (75.0%) lacked fine-tuning for pediatric-specific data. Among 33 studies assessing model performance against human annotations, 10 (30.3%) did not include clinicians as annotators; among 26 studies with multiple annotators, only 9 (34.6%) reported interannotator agreement statistics. Conclusions and Relevance: This scoping review found that diagnostic decision support and treatment planning were commonly proposed applications of LLMs in pediatrics. However, gaps in scientific rigor and limited use of pediatric-specific data may hinder their safe and effective implementation in pediatrics. Future studies should use standardized evaluation and reporting methods, increase clinician involvement, and expand research to underrepresented ages and clinical applications.
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.